As we learn more and more about what happened in Benghazi, Libya on the night of September 11, 2012, one thing remains clear: It didn’t have anything to do with any YouTube video, and our leaders damn well knew it.
Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics lays out what was confirmed yesterday:
[Gregory] Hicks, the second highest ranking State Department official in Libya when the consulate was attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, confirmed the following facts under oath: There were no protests outside the U.S. compound; the anti-Islamic YouTube video denounced by the administration was a “non-event” in Libya and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assault that night; Hicks’ team knew almost immediately that the attack was carried out by terrorists; and all of this information was relayed to Washington in the hours and days afterward.
Which didn’t stop some of our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters in the media from advocating censorship of the YouTube video in question, “Innocence of Muslims.” Because, you see, the video was so hurtful that it forced those poor victims to attack our consulate in Benghazi and kill our ambassador, even though that’s not even close to what happened.
It’s worth taking a look back to Sept 19 of last year, when Reason magazine’s Matt Welch rounded up reactions from a few such censorious fascists:
We have previously noted in this space the alarmingly restrictive free-speech concepts recently expressed by former Joint Chiefs of Staff employee Sarah Chayes, University of Pennsylvania Assistant Religious Studies Professor Anthea Butler, and a host of other government/media types. Let’s catch up on some other commentary:
Tim Wu, The New Republic, “When Censorship Makes Sense: How YouTube Should Police Hate
Speech“:A better course would be to try to create a process that relies on a community, either of regional experts or the serious users of YouTube. Community members would (as they do now) flag dangerous or illegal videos for deletion. Google would decide the easy cases itself, and turn the hard cases over to the community, which would aim for a rough consensus. Such a system would be an early-warning signal that might have prevented riots in the first place.
Steven Kurlander, Hernando Today, “Time to reset boundaries of free speech“:
Given the known consequences, it’s time to ban garbage that mocks the God of a billion people and purposefully incites the worst religious passions. It’s time the Supreme Court reconsidered whether such fiery speech should indeed be protected.
People purposefully mock the Christian God and Jesus Christ every single day, on YouTube and untold other venues, but I doubt these folks would call for a ban on such free speech. Because they’re not afraid of getting blown up.
Read the whole thing. Barry and Hilly’s first instinct was to blame the First Amendment, in order to divert from their own incompetence and dishonesty. And their faithful soldiers marched in lockstep.
They’re like worker drones protecting their queen. It’s futile to try to reason with them when they swarm.
Update: Father of Slain SEAL: ‘I Knew’ Clinton Was Lying When She Told Me It Was About the Video.
