"So the understood, if unspoken, threat in the Mohammed cartoon story was that a Mercedes sedan would roll up to the newspaper office and suddenly detonate a trunk full of high explosives. Because Kathy Griffin lives in the United States of America, she is largely free of such fears. She can look forward to a few more sold-out nights in Vegas.

There's a difference. Get it?"

I think you're the one that has the trouble telling the difference between censorship (the self/governments/media imposed deletion of content that might offend someone) and terrorism (the use of violence to accomplish one's ideological goals).

The issue here is censorship. The crux of Glenn's argument is that the right used the concept of "free speech" to justify the publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons which were deemed offensive to Muslims worldwide. Yet when the same "free speech" is applied to a concept that the right would find offensive, you don't hear much complaining about censorship.

For example, you will find statements like this from right wingers who are ardent defenders of free speech when it comes to maligning Islam:

"The free world should be standing resolutely with Denmark, ready to defend freedom of speech. Insofar as it is not defended, it will surely be lost. On Wednesday publications all over Europe — in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Holland — published the cartoons to demonstrate their support for this principle. "

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010009.php

"A lot of people seem to coming here for the Jyllands-Posten Cartoons. So, I am making sure they are top of mind by reposting them up for those curious. I also firmly believe that it is our responsibility to post, repost and repost these images. Nobody has the right to take away freedom of speech, certainly not some religion. Print em out... hand em out on the street... post em on walls. "

http://theodicies.blogspot.com/2006/02/jyllands-posten-danish-mohammed_03.html

"I think it’s important that the West stands up on this issue: if we cave into Muslim demands for self-censorship, our freedom of speech will be taken away forever.

Exactly right. And for those who think this isn’t affecting us, open your eyes"

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/01/30/support-denmark-why-the-forbidden-cartoons-matter/

Yet the same champions of free speech a largely silent that E! takes the initiative in censoring Kathy's remarks. I'm still waiting for Michelle to post her remarks on her page and encourage their distribution.

Glenn's argument is that the right will claim to support free speech only when it gives them an opportunity to mock images/ideas which they already despise, however, when the same concept is applied to their dearly held beliefs, the silence is deafening.

"The "insight" as you say, is that we have a law-based society to handle such matters, and where our laws cannot reach to provide us effective national security, we have a civilian-controlled military."

I'm sure the people being held at Guantanamo Bay will be extremely relieved to hear this!

You know, it really does depress me when we have to physically drag our leading candidates for President out of bed and back to Washington to vote on Critical legislation like this. Why do Clinton and Obama WANT to be in power if they just let stuff like this slide on by unless enormous pressure is applied by us??

/saddened, but not defeated! >=(

Forgive me if this was mentioned somewhere earlier, but I remember Glenzilla going on about how the same people who scream "judicial activism" are complaining because they don't like an outcome of a particular case, not because there are actual legal arguments against a particular outcome. In a case like this where the court refuses to hear the case; how much of the decision is based on the actual legal agrument that the case should not have gone to court to begin with, versus a court not wanting to make political waves with rulings that would potentially call out the Bush admin's illegal programs? Did that make any sense at all?? =)

Can it be ruled unconstitutional if brought before a court? Just the idea of making something that was previously illegal, all of the sudden legal....I mean, IS it constitutional? Could they do the same thing with murder? Is there a way to get accountability even if this atrocious bill becomes law??

Hi Glenn,

I am a long time reader and really enjoy your work. I don't know much about how reporters deal with their sources (other than not disclosing them) but I am curious by what means your source obtained the emails and what would their motive be for disclosing them? Is that something that can even be answered? :)

Thanks

I needed a cigarette after reading this post. :) Keep up the good work. I love your oozing sarcasm :)