Mark Horne:
Andrea Mitchell, having been married for years to Alan Greenspan, going back to when he was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is an amazing embodiment of how establishment media is in bed with the government. And she happily demonstrates the problem.
The Daily Caller reports, “Andrea Mitchell To French Ambassador: Why Are ‘Provocative’ Anti-Muslim Cartoons Permitted?”
The host of MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” asked French ambassador to the United States Gérard Araud why “provocative” anti-Muslim cartoons were permissible in France, when they had taken steps to ban Holocaust denial.
In this case, I have to admit that if Mitchell had kept her question to French law and custom, it would almost seem understandable. The fact is that France has a bunch of censorship rules and it is an reasonable question why some speech remains legal. It also reminds us that, if more Muslims win elections, France already has the legal precedents in place to ban such satire.
The tradition of free speech, it all began in France during the 1700′s and 18th century. But there are laws in France, laws that say you cannot deny the Holocaust, laws that say you cannot deny the Armenian genocide. So why is it permissible to be as provocative as these anti-Muslim cartoons were? This is a debate we’re having in the United States as well, you know.
What?!
Who’s “we”? Are we learning what goes on among Andrea Mitchell’s friends?
Out here in flyover country, we think the First Amendment has entirely settled the issue. It is that amendment that clearly articulates Andrea Mitchell’s right to do her job without interference from the government.
Of course, that is the problem. Mitchell doesn’t see herself as needing any legal protection from government restriction. She represents the ruling class. She is going to get all the freedom she wants, not as a natural right she shares with all other human beings, but as a government PR agent.
Well, there’s free speech and there’s free speech that denies the wonderment of liberal ideology, which should, of course, be banned.
Obama, Hillary (when she was Sec State) and the 57-Islamic state bloc (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the U.N. had been trying to make U.N. Resolution 16/18 the law of the planet.
Quashing “defamation of Islam” is enshrined as a chief objective in the OIC’s charter.
That bill, should it become law, would criminalize both insulting ”the prophet,” Mohammad, but even being critical of Islam!
The 57-Islamic state bloc is already the U.N.’s largest voting bloc.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/11/defending-islam-free-speech-muslim-oic-un-hate-speech-criticism-column/21609273/
I think it is worth noting to idiots like Andrea that her ”Jewishness” (married to a Jew) is enough of a status crime to warrant her death sentence during a time of rising Islamic populations in one place after another.
France had 500,000 Jews only 2 years ago.
Now they have 400,000 and more are leaving (about 3,000 a week) all the time.
See, Islam has both types of crimes for ”infidels,” behavior crimes, like insulting Islam or supposedly desecrating a koran, plus STATUS crimes which people are guilty of no matter how hard they try to be meek and invisible to their Muslim overlords.