The press release from the United States Embassy issue on September 11th, before the missile attack on the embassy in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, came from the hand of one staffer who ignored instructions not to issue it.  It was a public relations disaster.

The content was conciliatory and failed to reflect a correct statement of American constitutional rights. At the time it was issued, though, the embassy faced a massive protest which appears on the verge of imminent violence.  Misguided as the statement might have been, its purpose was conciliatory. Not only is that what diplomats do, but that was what the situation called for.

First, calm things down. Later, over a nice cup of mint tea, have a nuanced discussion of comparative civil rights.  I cannot find fault with someone deciding not to tell a guy with a metaphorical gun to his head that he’s blithering idiot. It’s just not the right moment.   To call it a “pusillanimous press release misstating and abandoning core American values” is facile when not sitting in an embassy under seige.

While the statement was wrong and misguided, it wasn’t issued under the best and most deliberative of circumstances. The fact that it failed to calm the hordes doesn’t mean an effort to be conciliatory at that particular moment in time was wrong. Not everything works.

But there is no excuse of extremis to explain the  publication by USA Today of an op-ed by University of Pennsylvania Religion Professor Anthea Butler.

If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!

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.

Whatever should we call the legislation soon to be pending? “Sam’s Law,” perhaps?  This is the law that will criminalize speech that Butler finds despicable because “it denigrates a religion.”  Ken at Popehat/Salon eviscerates Butler’s op-ed.  Curiously, the two similar posts received almost opposite reactions by commenters based on the local crowds.  

A  lawyer might note that Butler’s argument is replete with logical contradictions and a gross misapprehension of the law:

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.

* * *

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.

Inflaming others is the purpose of speech, not a flaw.  Respecting other cultures, and wanting them to respect ours, is a wonderful aspiration, but not the basis for a crime.  I’m unaware of anyone defending the Bacile video; it’s a piece of trash.  And to the extent such a piece of trash was the source of havoc in the mideast (which, while it may be the focus, may not prove to be as accurate as now assumed, and just a stalking horse for other forces at work), that’s the price of a core American value of free speech. 

In the comments to Ken’s Salon post, writers who have the opportunity for thought and reflection “breathlessly” try to rationalize why Butler is right, even if for the wrong reasons, by throwing words against the wall without any grasp of their meaning.  Every exception to the First Amendment, plus a few that aren’t, is bandied about as a reason to imprison Sam Bacile (or whoever he is).  And as is the internet’s wont, the locals cheer the cause in which they believe.

But when putatively smart people rationalize away rights by terrible outcomes, and seek a criminal solution to the things they wish hadn’t happened, it forces others to “breathlessly” defend those rights.  Just as every dead child gets a new law named after him, the cries for Sam Bacile’s blood in retribution for the way people in foreign lands reacted resonate with many.  And with the voice of a Penn professor, they gain legitimacy, if not rationality. 

This entire scenario has the scent of a huge set-up, from the creation of this film to its being used as the mechanism to inflame Muslims, while others had rockets aimed at an embassy. It would come as no surprise to eventually learn that we’re busy arguing over the curtailment of constitutional rights under false pretences.  Maybe Osama’s ghost is laughing at us for what we’re doing to ourselves.

That words inflame, however, is nothing new. On a good day, that’s what words are meant to do, inflame passion and thought.  That the inflamed turn to violence rather than protest, or just more words, is unexcusable.  But the fact is that it happens, and will happen again in the future, Words, even incredibly stupid words, can evoke feelings, and some people are incapable of controlling their feelings, to the point that they harm others.  The problem isn’t anger, but that the angry take it to the level of violence. 

There is a lot of anger floating around this situation, and there have been real people harmed by it.  There has been a lot of brazen talk, much of it ignorant and self-serving.  There has been a lot of chest-thumping by well-intended advocates of one side or the other.  All of this is how Americans work out their disagreements, by screaming at each other, calling out each other’s arguments and airing our differences. We aren’t always the smartest bunch around, and much of what we have to say is pretty foolish, but we still get to say it.

These are the situations that test our resolve.  As long as we don’t harm others in the course of our disagreements, we can disagree all day long. It’s messy, frustrating and often disturbing, but it isn’t a crime.