Obama, Who Tried to Censor "Innocence of Muslims" Vid, Says Sony Shouldn't Have Pulled The Interview
What a difference a couple of years make, eh? Here's President Obama talking at today's press conference about Sony's decision to yank The Interview after being hacked and threatened:
"We cannot have a society where some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States," Obama said. "Imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don't want to offend the sensibilities of someone who's sensibilities probably need to be offended."
Good for Obama! Sticking up for free expression and all that, right? What is it that lovely lady on Fox's Outnumbered said? "America is AWESOME!"
But before we lose perspective, recall the president's reaction in 2012 to the YouTube video "The Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Mohammed as a pedophile and more.
The Obama administration pressured Google to remove the offending short, which for a while it claimed triggered the riot in Benghazi, Libya:
Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video [that reportedly set off the embassy attacks] and determine whether it violates the site's terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.
At a September 25, 2012 address to the United Nations, Obama himself declared that we "must" condemn "those who slander the prophet of Islam":
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims.
Screw you, bub. Because I just heard this (can't remember where, but I'll think of it any second now):
"We cannot have a society where some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can we have an Obama free day? Please?
The good news is that he should be headed off to Honolulu at any time now.
The bad news is that it's only temporary and he's eventually coming back.
All aboard the Choom Choom train!
Yeah. In two years, plus a little bit.
You mean we can't blame everything that happens in the next presidency on him? That's no fun.
Who could possibly care about the opinion of this skinny little twerp?
Uh, Michelle . . . nevermind
Song of the day, Mr. Megahustle.
Obama knows his mongoloid base will eat this up and have selective amnesia about The Innocence of Muslims. Why wouldn't he do this? he gets to stick a thumb in North Korea's eye and look like a stand up guy for free speech and not being intimidated.
He is President Murderdrone, afterall.
Now that you mention it, it does seem like he's leading from behind as usual. The movie has been withdrawn so now it's safe to say "Oh, too bad you pulled the movie, I was really hoping you wouldn't do that." If they had released the movie he'd probably have said something different.
I think it would be great if Sony changed their mind and said this speech convinced them.
That would be AWESOME. They'll never do it.
He even said he 'wished they'd call him' before they made the decision.
So HE could be the one telling producers and distributors what to release.
It would have been a bonus for him. He could have condemned Sony for releasing it and causing whatever happened and he'd have a new crisis to use to erode our liberties further.
Actually Sony are now denying that they have caved, and say they do want to release the movie after all. They disagree with the President that it 'was a mistake' to cancel the release.
Seth Rogan doesn't get to pollute the theaters with another one of his turds?
I think the Norks actually did America a favor.
Guys, you just don't get it. When Obama pressures a company to remove critical content, it's fine. When a company removes content and it presents an opportunity for him to claim the moral high ground, it's giving into dictators.
You guys just need to grow up and realize that the person saying these things, and the amount of power they have, is what's relevant. Not the actual consistency of the position.
So, lemme get this straight, Obama's all up in No Ko's grill-- a country that purportedly had nukular weapons, over a movie that got pulled by Sony.
But a dude no one's ever heard of got arrested because he made a movie that pissed off a car-burning cult.
Dude, they don't burn *cars* - they burn Citroens.
How dare some tinpot dictator horn in on the Chastiser-in-Chief's action?
Another amazing thing about this is how the malignant narcissist in chief managed to make this about him. "Why didn't Sony come to my magnificence and ask for my advice?"
Maybe because they thought his magnificence was too great to look upon.
Well Sony should have went and discussed this with Obama.
After all if you are in a pissing match with a narcissistic leader of a personality cult, you should talk to someone who has experience in that area.
I'm sure it would have been an illuminating chat for Sony.
WOLLLVERIIIIIIIIIIINESSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!
*pumps fists in air*
OT, but the FCC rejected the petition to pull a station's broadcast license for broadcasting the name, "Redskins."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....te-speech/
Is there any precedent at all for the idea that there is such a thing as constitutionally unprotected hate speech?
I know there are hate crimes laws, but they all require that and actual crime must have been done, not just unpleasant words said as far as I know.
This case just seems especially absurd. Even if "Redskins" is considered offensive by a lot of people (which I am not convinced it is), just saying a word that people don't like isn't hate. It's insensitivity at worst.
Once upon a time there was no precedent for 'hate-crime' laws either. Once upon a time you were prosecuted for your *actions alone* and not for your thoughts.
Hate-crime law *is* the precedent for constitutionally unprotected 'hate-speech'.
OT: http://www.nj.com/morris/index....._most-read
Fuck. You.
I'd really like to know what this guy and all the other school system administrators actually do to warrant that kind of pay.
They have the awesome responsibility of having to decide whether to suspend a kid for 3 months or an entire year for the crime of eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun?
You need TOP MEN to make that sort of call and they don't come cheap.
School bureaucrats seem to be obscenely overpaid these days. Just read that the President of Purdue (maybe) was pulling in $12MM a year.
Haha, you student loan suckers and NJ taxpayers!
See ya', Paul! Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
He'll just move to another state and do the same thing and fleece some other set of taxpayers.
Defend us from the scourge of pop-tart guns?
If he's leaving the state, presumably he has a better offer. It's hard to tell since it is government schools, but it may well be that there is enough demand for qualified administrators that the pay is necessary to keep good people. Being a school superintendent is sort of like running a big company.
I'm curious how they define "good people"?
*I'd really like to know what this guy and all the other school system administrators actually do to warrant that kind of pay.*
Our Superintendent blew a crapton of money flying to Oslo or somesuch with a bunch of other overpaid pigs to study some European schools...you know, because it would have been impossible to you know, just read about these things/places in a book. OH no, you need to spend 80K and fly first class to get there and then learn those thigns. What a joke.
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA.
which mocked Mohammed as a pedophile
You misspelled "accurately portrayed".
This is quite simple.
Muslims are among the protected class. Plus, some of their extremists have actually made good on their threats to kill or blow up the targets of their protest. Obama would similarly hedge his words if some feminist anarchists hacked a movie because it promoted rape or starred Bill Cosby. "Well, we need to protect freedom of speech, but I also hear concerns about rape, you know?"
Nobody cares about North Korea, not even the college empowerment crowd. Al Qaida has struck America more than North Korea. NK trolled a movie studio that caved into their demands, so Obama can speak very loudly and make himself look like a real champion of free speech without fear.
Would the Norks even care if this film had been made by any company that wasn't owned by a JAPANESE conglomerate?
*Muslims are among the protected class. Plus, some of their extremists have actually made good on their threats to kill or blow up the targets of their protest.*
Meanwhile, you can stick a crucifix in your anus and dance around for 90 minutes and Hollywood will give you an Oscar for it.
Christians/Jews/Mormons--here's your hint on how NOT to get made fun of by Hollywood.
Coe on dude, roll with it man.
http://www.TheAnonBay.tk
Obama. Hypocrite. Who knew?