CNN, Islamic supremacist pseudo-academic Omid Safi come out against the freedom of speech

The headline (and the first paragraph) is the first thing wrong with this piece. I haven't seen the film, but I wouldn't be surprised if Dan Gilgoff hasn't, either. He just assumes it is "hate speech" because it is a mainstream media axiom that all speech that opposes jihad and Islamic supremacism is "hate speech." But did Dan Gilgoff ever label Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, Chris Ofili’s dung- and pornography-encrusted Holy Virgin Mary, or a thousand anti-Semitic caricatures in the Arabic media vilifying Jews and Judaism in the crudest terms "hate speech"? I doubt it.

"Reaction to anti-Islam film fuels debate on free speech versus hate speech," by Dan Gilgoff for CNN, September 12:

(CNN) - The deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans amid protests against a film that denigrates Islam has sparked global discussion and debate about whether there is a line between free speech and hate speech and, if so, where it lies.

“They don’t regard perceived insults to the Prophet Mohammed or the Quran as being protected by free speech, they regard it as a capital offense,” says Peter Bergen, CNN’s national security analyst, referring to protesters in Libya and Egypt, where the U.S. Embassy was attacked, who were angered by the film.

Bergen probably doesn't know that it is not just "they" who regard insults to Muhammad as a capital offense; it is a capital offense in Islamic law.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the movie was made by a real estate developer who wanted to portray Islam as a hateful religion.

And he had abundant evidence -- including the ensuing murderous riots. He had 19,000+ jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11. He had the statements of hatred and violence coming on a regular basis from imams around the world, quoting Qur'an and Sunnah. He had the gleeful celebrations in Gaza after the murders of Israeli civilians. He had the endless victimhood posturing, opposition to all resistance to jihad, and deceptiveness of Muslim groups in the U.S. But for Dan Gilgoff, none of that is enough even to keep him from labeling as "hate speech" someone who exposes the hatefulness and violence of Muslims acting in the name of Islam. Nothing will ever be enough, because he will always dismiss any and all jihad activity as the work of "extremists," and mutter about how all religions have them -- despite the complete absence of Jewish and Christian violent extremists citing their Scriptures to justify violence. He will always believe in the Vast Majority of Peaceful Muslims Who Abhor Violence and Terrorism, despite the fact that they have done nothing -- nothing -- to oppose their violent and supremacist coreligionists.

The attack on the U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, was orchestrated by extremists who used the protests as a diversion, U.S. sources told CNN Wednesday.

“In some of these cases, the people releasing these films or cartoons are trying to make a statement about free speech, which is fair enough,” says Bergen, referring to the film and other provocative recent depictions of Mohammed, Islam’s founding prophet.

"But in some cases they are deliberately trying to provoke," Bergen says. "The film that is at issue is certainly very provocative, the way it treats the Prophet Mohammed, and people who release these things are being very irresponsible."

So what if they're deliberately trying to provoke? If someone shows up at my office door and starts yelling insults at me, clearly he would be deliberately trying to provoke me. If, however, I responded by shooting him, I would not be any less responsible for the murder because he was trying to provoke me.

Newt Gingrich told CNN Wednesday that the United States should seize on the violence spurred by the film “to teach the Muslim world about freedom,” specifically about freedom of speech.

Indeed.

His remarks, echoed by other conservatives on Wednesday, signaled something of a divide in reaction to developments in Libya and Egypt between the political right, which stressed freedom of speech, and the left, which added condemnation of those behind the anti-Muslim film.

"The horrific attacks in Libya & Egypt are a stark contrast to our American ideals of free speech, civil disagreement," wrote Todd Rokita, a Republican U.S. congressman who is from Indiana, on Twitter.

Gingrich, the former presidential candidate and speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said that after the attacks, “We had an opportunity to stand up and say, ‘You know, it is true - some people in the United States might make a film that is totally whacked out.’”

“Sooner or later, we in the modern world have to say to those who are living in a different way, ‘Look, we stand for freedom,’” he said.

Gingrich criticized statements from the U.S. government that he said went too far in condemning and apologizing for the anti-Muslim film.

In a statement on Tuesday morning - before the violence - the U.S. Embassy in Egypt wrote that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement continued. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Some U.S. officials spoke to the tension between U.S. support for free speech and what some have described as the film’s “hate speech,” in reacting to the attacks.

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement.

"Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” she said. “But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

Some other political and religious leaders also cited the tension between free speech and what they said was hate speech. "I support #freespeech AND believe this film is hateful," tweeted Eboo Patel, an American Muslim leader based in Chicago. "I stand up for #Islam AND condemn violence of extremist Muslims #fb #responsibility."

Others joined in venting disapproval of both the film and the attacks. "For the record, you can condemn violence in response to hate speech, and you can also condemn hate speech," wrote Jeff Fecke on Twitter. "You don't have to support either."

In other words, let's practice self-censorship to bring our speech into accord with Islamic blasphemy laws.

Some American Muslims said Wednesday that while they support the right of free speech, they believe that the U.S. applies its values selectively in the Muslim world, especially when it comes to military and intelligence operations.

“Freedom of speech falls alongside other freedoms to live and be free from bombs falling on people’s heads and to be free from occupations,” says Omid Safi, religious studies professor at the University of North Carolina, referring to American military and intelligence operations in parts of the Muslim world.

“I will take free speech comments seriously when others take people’s freedom of life and dignity and to be free from occupation just as seriously,” he said.

The paragraph leading into Safi's remarks is false: Safi clearly doesn't support free speech. He says he will take it seriously when "others take people’s freedom of life and dignity and to be free from occupation just as seriously" -- in other words, he will grant a right of freedom of speech when Israel capitulates to the Palestinian jihad.

My man Omid Safi, of course, is a man of no integrity, who has even stooped so low as to claim that I threatened to kill him and his family. That he holds a professorship and is quoted by CNN is an indication of the debased state of academia and the media today.