Yes, our freedoms of speech and belief are so important and that is why it is completely unacceptable that the Globe, neither in its articles nor in its editorial, deals with the deliberate and well-planned intentions to further restrict these by the Obama Administration (through Clinton's several meetings this year with the OIC, Organization of Islamic Cooperation) in conjunction with the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League and the African Union.  On another article yesterday, I quoted from the OIC which represents 57 Islamic countries and thereby fronts a strong voting bloc at the UN and which has been attempting to obtain a binding UN Resolution on all UN member states for several years which would criminalize any language deemed as 'blasphemous' and an  'incitement' to violence.  The OIC stated that "The international community should come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression" and that "the deliberate, motivated and systematic abuse of this freedom" is a danger to "global security and stability" and that "growing intolerance towards Moslems" has to be "checked" and it is calling for "an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material."

The UN's rep has stated that "freedom of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected when they are used for common justice and common purpose."   This is not language which extols liberty but which is intent on curbing it as years of the UN's refusal to discuss the myriad injustices of Sharia Law confirm.

Obviously, neither the Islamic nations, nor the UN, understand freedom of speech (though they do recognize its great power which is why they seek to negate and silence it) but what is the Globe's excuse for its self-imposed silence and failure to defend our liberties?   If such a UN Resolution is successful in "criminalizing" discussion of Islam (which does indeed "incite" Moslems to rage, terrorism and slaughter as this week's body count and various governments' conduct illustrate only too well), then a great deal more than discussion of Islam itself will be silenced, including our freedoms of speech and belief,  the superiority of our laws to Sharia law, our opposition to Islamic practices and abuses and even seemingly unrelated subjects as science, medicine, art and history.  

We are under siege and we are losing. The enemy rioting outside the gates is just a distraction while they burrow under the castle. That's what this attack on free speech is all about, it is the enemy burrowing under the castle. Once we have been intimidated into avoiding any critical study and analysis of Islam we have lost. That's exactly what is happening tody. We have accepted the Muslim narrative that any critical analysis of Islam is tantamount to insulting Islam. The various Islamic alphabet soup organizations that fall under the umbrella of the OIC [which most people have never heard of] and the Muslim Brotherhood [which at least a few people have heard of] have been very successful in intimidating the media into developing a whole new dictionary of euphemisms to avoid any straightforward words that might inflame Muslims. Our armed forces are being sent into hostile countries such as Afghanistan intellectually disarmed. Training manuals have been scrubbed of any information that our Islamic censors find objectionable. For a comparison of where we are today to where we were during WWII facing a similar threat from a supremacist enemy have a look at a cartoon produced by the Disney Studios. Like the Mohammed video, this one is also available on YouTube. Watch "Donald Duck In the Fuhrer's face."

The Globe puts out a "Fact Check" on some parts of the Warren-Brown debate.--But where's the Globe's Fact Check team investigation of the Obama Admininstration's insistence that the tragic events in Libya and Egypt were caused by a video? And Hillary Clinton'as and Barack Obama's own video in Pakistan that PLEADS with Muslims to not blame the U.S.? And APOLOGIZES to Muslims? And that the subsequest protests in other countries are also caused by a video?--Already the Administration's version has a lot of holes in its story. --But so far, the Globe is accepting the Obama version 100%.---Considering that this issue is far more serious than a local debate, how come the Globe isn't at the least bit bit interested in checking out some facts. ---WAIT I know why. The Globe heartily endorsed Barack Obama's "Arab Spring" offensive.

Globe says "as well as places where the video has caused violent unrest, such as Egypt and Libya."

Globe KNOWS that is NOT the reason for the violence. The administration's decision to blame the violence on a video is purely POLITICAL. It is not only to deflect blame from the Obama campaign, it's even an attempt to blame any Americans who would speak out against Muslim terrorism, especially conservatives. --This is a cynical and dangerous game that the Obama administration, its campaign, and willing media like the Boston globe who advance the "video did it" PROPAGANDA. This administration is so weak on foreign policy that it put out an APOLOGY Video to Pakistan Tv. And it refuses to rule out the possibility that it could release the "Blind Sheik" who organized the 1993 World Trade center bombings. --The difference between this administration's domestic and foreign policy is ASTOUNDING. Obama lectures, regulates, and even wages WAR against Americans. In foreign policy, Obama BOASTED at the Democratic Party convention that he was tough on America's enemies . Now it turns out that he retreats from and apologizes to America's enemies.  He hopes that by turning the other cheek, Muslims will respond in kind. --Well GUESS WHAT? Muslims take him for a fool and a weakling.--The Globe's article is cynical and dangerous advice for Americans.

Google blows with the wind on free speech.

Thoughtful and important editorial. Thank you. Also, for those who believe the First Amendment automatically protects obscene, defamatory speech, it would be good to learn about actual U.S. Supreme Court decisions, some of which have upheld restrictions against speech likely to cause imminent breaches of the peace based on use of certain insulting words reasonably expected to cause breach of the peace. The decisions are mixed, so there is no single 'correct' interpretation of teh First Amendment's scope. You can't curse in court. You can't shout 'fire' in a movie theatre. Obscenity may be prohibited. The list is long. See, as an example of how the US Supreme Court has accepted such limitations as needed and reasonable: Chaplinskky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568. I am not presuming to have the answer re how to balance the 1st A we all love and cherish and the utility of restricting harmful speech. But kudos to the Globe for trying to have this dialogue and explore historically recognized nuances. And yes, the violence of the protestors is far more obscene than the video itself, and the video is not the underlying root cause of the violence, but I believe the video hurts our national security and other vital interests and we should explore ways to protect all involved (to promote a healthy system of freedom of expression). Emphasis on the word "explore".