I Was Too Quick To Defend The President

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

In my previous post, I said:

I've been very critical of those who call for sanctions on Sam Bacile for his juvenile "movie", sanctions that would violate the First Amendment. But the President has not once said anything that undermines anyone's First Amendment right to criticize Islam in the most offensive way they can. He has condemned — rightly — idiots like Bacile, who add nothing of substance to any meaningful conversation, and nothing of value to society. But that in no way suggests that he does not fully support First Amendment protection for that speech, any more than a condemnation of the racist speech of the Ku Klux Klan suggests anything other than support for the First Amendment. Protecting speech does not involve pretending that the speech of people like Bacile is anything but offensive crap.

It turns out I was a bit too quick to defend President Obama's administration. Though I believe I was correct at the time that was posted, later in the day the LA Times posted a story that undermines my claims.

Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East. 

The administration flagged the 14-minute "Innocence of Muslims" video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, officials said Thursday.

Asking YouTube, a private company, to review whether the video violates its TOS doesn't technically violate the First Amendment. There's no evidence of explicit governmental pressure to suppress speech, and YouTube in fact did not remove the video. But it's hard to explain the administration's actions here except as an effort to illegitimately suppress the speech. It's not like YouTube was unaware of the video until the administration kindly brought it to their attention. And governmental "requests" always carry an implicit threat when they're made to companies in regulated industries. While it may not have violated the First Amendment, the administration's disappointing action certainly violates the spirit of free speech.