We understand the anger stemming from the anti-Islam film. In his speech Tuesday to the UN, President Obama described the video ‘Innocence of Muslims’ as "crude and disgusting" and an insult "not only to Muslims, but to America as well." There is no doubt that many Americans feel this way.
It’s important to understand that this was a low-budget, amateurish film produced by an individual with private funding, and that individuals in the U.S. are not required to register with a government agency before writing and publishing a book or producing a film. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said on several occasions, “Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.”
Of equal importance is what Secretary Clinton went on to say: “We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation, and as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including of course, millions of Muslims, and we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”
Many users on various social forums throughout the Muslim world have wondered in recent weeks why the U.S. didn’t simply ban the video. President Obama addressed this question in Tuesday’s speech at the UN, saying, “The answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander-in-chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.”
We understand that there are different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech. This is well and good – in fact, it is largely because there is value in differing opinions that we have laws protecting free speech. But surely we can agree that violence in response to speech is not acceptable.

Capt. Joseph Kreidel
DET-United States Central Command
www.centcom.mil/ur

If your Constitution protects the right to free speech then why can't anyone not speak against Holocaust ?

Err...who said they can't?lol

Source and citation please!

That's all well and good, but then why did the White House request Youtube to take the clip out?

White House asked YouTube to review anti-Muslim film

Google, YouTube Refuse White House Request To Pull Anti-Islamic Film - Forbes

It can't be hypocritical on the matter. Either President Obama defends freedom of expression, despite disagreeing with the content, or he clearly says he will invoke censorship.

Why is the current Obama administration so wishy washy about this?

Actually the government asked to check if the video went against rules and regulations of Youtue!

__________________
"Never stop fighting for What You Believe In!.... and never stop thinking about whether you're actually on the right side."

Today I heard Madonna said something like
"Obama is a black Muslim in White House".

And I am wondering if this is within the realms of "Free Speach" or sorta crosses over into a subtle racial slurr ? But then again she urged folks to vote for Obama so I guess it looks all good and her gesture should not be taken out of context.

Agreed, but i humbly sumbit, US and west hold out themselves as the model societies and US annualy publish reports on human rights condition and freedom of speech, stating policy of USG is to promote these values, which is USG and western right.

My contention is we live in ever increasing interconnected world and not all values and norms would be acceptable to all, whether from west to east or east to west, since we all have to live and we all want betterment of human race and world its high time we all start give and take.

No one in muslim world is asking for limit on free speech, Islam and Muslims even God and prophet are criticized even in Muslim countries without a problem, the issue is ridiculing, degrading and insulting, which should come under hate speech and should be regarded as such and shouldn't be given the thin cover of freedom of speech.

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

Even if it were a racial slur, it wouldn't matter. It would still be protected as free speech.
The first amendment will protect you even if what you're saying is a racial slur, or derogatory to any religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation...

Why though is my question?

Why should the government be interfering in how a privately owned entity is run if it isn't doing anything against government made regulations or laws?

it was a request...not an order...the government can make a request if it considers the material to be of the hate speech variety....a government can have an opinion..

__________________
SPARTANSSSS!!!!!! EAT HEARTY, FOR TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELLLLLLLL!!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

bullsh*t that is a european...actually as far as i remember specifically a german and austrian law which has obvious historical motivators....US still allows KKK to function for crying out loud....its the first amendment

__________________
SPARTANSSSS!!!!!! EAT HEARTY, FOR TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELLLLLLLL!!!!!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

US does allow KKK but KKK publicly doesn't say its racist its just like NCAAP, American Jewish congress, CAIR, etc etc, in guise of civil rights or community advancement for certain group, based on ethnic or religious.

US also had no objection to IRA and IRA fund raising till mid 90's and even then it was mainly because IRA itself signed the peace accord.

Yet US would charge anyone for terrorism if they are affliated or symapthetic to say Muslim Brotherhood.

This is the point the sheer hypocrisy.

What US defines as freedom of speech I don't have to agree with it, take e.g recent public advertisement in NY subways calling muslim savages, which the US court ordered Subway authority to allow on premises and declared it is political speech and thus freedom of speech. By same token if Ahmedinjad calls israelis scum of earth then same US decries and calls it hate speech.

Yaar Bottom line, US asked and have youtube remove videos apprarently glorifying jihad etc etc not once but several times, Bush admin wanted to bomb al-jazeera, so spare me freedom of speech. In the end these are US values so find they are entitle to them and should keep them at same time if other govts and ppl don't share then don't come crying and calling them idiots, savages or uneducated morons. If youtube cant remove them cuz of thier values then its alright for govts who don't share that values to ban youtube. You can't have double standards.

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com