There is no legitimate reason why making a movie about Mohammed as a violent mass murderer should be illegal, apart from the inconvenience of having Muslim violently commit mass murder in response to such a movie, thereby completely disproving its thesis. In an accomplishment of equal self-contradiction, Anthea Butler, a professor of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania which really will hire absolutely anyone wrote an Op-Ed for USA Today explaining why the Mohammed filmmaker belongs in prison.
If there’s anything that nullifies the argument for a college education, it would be the fact that Anthea Butler, despite having fewer brain cells than most lab monkeys and no ability to detect when she is contradicting herself in the same sentence, is a college professor at UPenn.
My initial tweet about Bacile, the person said to be responsible for the film mocking the prophet Mohammed, was not because I am against the First Amendment.
Clearly not. Suggesting that people go to jail for their speech is what supporters of the First Amendment usually do.
If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!
Tenured professors value their speech, not the free speech of people who disagree with them, which is what her entire response proves.
So why did I tweet that Bacile should be in jail? The “free speech” in Bacile’s film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith’s founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers.
So which part of that isn’t a personal opinion?
Is Anthea Butler saying that personal opinions become illegal when in the opinion of an Associate Prof at UPenn they are “historically inaccurate”. Or is she saying that inflammatory personal opinions can be illegal?
Bacile’s movie is not the first to denigrate a religious figure, nor will it be the last. The Last Temptation of Christ was protested vigorously. The difference is that Bacile indirectly and inadvertently inflamed people half a world away, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Embassy personnel.
Case in point: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile’s film. Clearly, the military considers the film a serious threat to national security. If the military takes it seriously, there should be consequences for putting American lives at risk.
In Paragraph 1, Anthea Butler states that “Bacile’s” actions were indirect and inadvertent. In another paragraph she claims that because General Dempsey called a third party to ask him to stop promoting the movie… Bacile should go to jail.
Does Butler really think that the military should be in charge of deciding whether people go to jail for a personal opinion?
While the First Amendment right to free expression is important, it is also important to remember that other countries and cultures do not have to understand or respect our right.
They don’t have to understand or respect it, they just can’t react by killing us or there will be consequences.
Is Butler arguing that the filmmaker should go to jail because
1. Because she claims the movie was historically inaccurate
2. Because the movie inadvertently offended Muslims into getting violent
3. Because the military is opposed to it
No one knows because Anthea Butler is no more capable of putting together a coherent argument than of fixing her hair.