In defending freedom of speech at the UN, President Obama addressed a variety of audiences, especially the worlds Muslims angry over an offensive video, but he also didnt want to rile up his political opponents at home. That kept some of the key defenses of free speech off the table, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar. <\/p>\n
By Paul R. Pillar <\/p>\n
It was inevitable that President Barack Obama would devote a significant part of his address to the United Nations General Assembly to the subject of freedom of expression. The repercussions of the anti-Islam video that sparked violence in several Muslim-majority countries are too recent and too substantial not to have done so. <\/p>\n
The President began and ended his speech referring to Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador who died in some of that violence. Mr. Obama had to explain why the United States could not have somehow just banned the offensive video. And of course he would have been criticized by his domestic political opponents if he had not delivered a vigorous defense of free speech. <\/p>\n
President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy) <\/p>\n
What the President said on the topic in his U.N. speech was appropriate for the forum, the time and the circumstances. The address deserves the good reviews it received. <\/p>\n
The President noted that modern mass communications make obsolete many notions of controlling the flow of information. He argued that free speech is necessary for a democracy to function well. And he observed that efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. <\/p>\n
All quite valid, although this defense of free speech was still rather narrow. The President discussed the subject in large part in terms of religion. He said it is not repression but rather more speech that is needed to rally against bigotry and blasphemy. Use of that last term was unfortunate. <\/p>\n
Although bigotry and blasphemy are both negative concepts that imply contempt for someone elses community, and although sometimes both are exhibited by the same warped minds, they really are different things. <\/p>\n
Some of the most pronounced bigotry is exhibited by those who profess to be most outraged by blasphemy. The term blasphemy recalls the intolerance codified in blasphemy laws and the genuine outrage of how some of those laws are implemented. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Read more: In defending freedom of speech at the UN, President Obama addressed a variety of audiences, especially the worlds Muslims angry over an offensive video, but he also didnt want to rile up his political opponents at home. That kept some of the key defenses of free speech off the table, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar Continue reading
\nObama Carefully Defends Free Speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"