Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pampango

(24,692 posts)
42. Obama's response at the UN on freedom of speech
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:38 PM
Sep 2012

I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks speak to the need for all of us to address honestly the tensions between the West and an Arab World moving to democracy. Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad, and we do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals, represents the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims– any more than the views of the people who produced this video represent those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.

That brand of politics – one that pits East against West; South against North; Muslim against Christian, Hindu, and Jew – cannot deliver the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag will do nothing to educate a child. Smashing apart a restaurant will not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an Embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children and creating the opportunities they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

Understand that America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends. We will stand with our allies and are willing to partner with countries to deepen ties of trade and investment; science and technology; energy and development – efforts that can spark economic growth for all of our people, and stabilize democratic change. But such efforts depend upon a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company; no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnership to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger –one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunnis and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. Extremists understand this. And because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They do not build, they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/25/1136185/-Transcript-of-President-Obama-s-address-to-the-UN-General-Assembly-as-prepared-for-delivery

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

hypocrisy on every single side - no exceptions. marasinghe Sep 2012 #1
What is the hypocrisy of your side? nt ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #90
Give me a break Marksman_91 Sep 2012 #2
One man's religion is another man's joke LesserFool Sep 2012 #5
Well stated. I fully agree with your post. Quantess Sep 2012 #14
I have a question about free speech azurnoir Sep 2012 #17
Free speech on the DU? I don't think that is the topic, here. Quantess Sep 2012 #18
well I gave an example you are attempting to make it the subject azurnoir Sep 2012 #35
Hmm... DU has its own ideas about who is okay to offend and who isn't. Quantess Sep 2012 #51
but once again I am not the one attempting to conflate the 2 azurnoir Sep 2012 #52
LOL, what on god's green earth are you even talking about? Quantess Sep 2012 #60
yep and the 'chuckle' is mutual as you edited your comment after I made mine azurnoir Sep 2012 #82
I honestly did not see that you had replied before I made my edit for clarity. Quantess Sep 2012 #94
People are taught to be offended socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #103
I remember that! Ash_F Sep 2012 #20
There is a difference between christx30 Sep 2012 #21
DUers voluntarily quit the offensive speech Jackpine Radical Sep 2012 #27
If police were arresting people for typing mAnn Coulter, then that would be a violation of ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #91
yes it is oh so glorious especially when those "the most people" azurnoir Sep 2012 #16
You SO nailed it there. +1000000. closeupready Sep 2012 #55
No I will not give you a break. closeupready Sep 2012 #54
Wow... You got straight to the point, huh Marksman_91 Sep 2012 #99
Good luck with that. Socal31 Sep 2012 #3
As I pointed out in another thread... Speck Tater Sep 2012 #4
We do have a problem here Jessy169 Sep 2012 #6
That is right glacierbay Sep 2012 #9
Your point of view is identical to that of fanatical right-wing hatemongers Jessy169 Sep 2012 #29
My point of view is identical to that of fanatical right-wing hatemongers? glacierbay Sep 2012 #32
Yes, identical Jessy169 Sep 2012 #40
The difference you and I glacierbay Sep 2012 #45
RW Christians would take a Hate Speech law and then MicaelS Sep 2012 #50
Again DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #79
your quote, analyzed DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #83
So, glacierbay Sep 2012 #107
Hmmmmm. JDPriestly Sep 2012 #12
If the Muslim countries were consistent leftynyc Sep 2012 #24
OK, as someone who lives near terry Jones DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #77
The right to criticize the "sacred" is a part of any civilized society Donowitz Sep 2012 #7
Hate speech should not be banned. glacierbay Sep 2012 #25
Hate speech is not a relative matter. Donowitz Sep 2012 #37
U.S. Constitution grants the right to freedom of and from religion. kiranon Sep 2012 #8
No, it "grants" NOTHING. PavePusher Sep 2012 #15
Your reply shows you have a different concept of 'natural' from some others muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #22
The exceptional ability of humans to use language distinguishes us from all other species slackmaster Sep 2012 #26
If one is mute or autistic would they have a right to free speech kiranon Sep 2012 #80
Mute and autistic people do have at least part of normal human capacity to use language slackmaster Sep 2012 #86
So, our rights are allowed to us by government? PavePusher Sep 2012 #33
I would say by society muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #38
But our foundation documents allow government to curtail our rights only through due process of law slackmaster Sep 2012 #87
No, there's nothing there about 'all rights' muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #89
It doesn't explicitly say all rights exist except those that have been restricted through due... slackmaster Sep 2012 #93
I'd say it's the difference between an American and a non-American outlook muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #100
So we only have those Rights specifically listed? PavePusher Sep 2012 #96
I think rights can be listed outside a constitution as well as inside it muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #101
So, you don't have the right to get a tattoo unless it's been specifically discussed in public... slackmaster Sep 2012 #104
If there are age restrictions, then it doesn't sound like it's being treated as a natural right muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #105
The age of majority of 18 is the result of a consensus decision by the people slackmaster Sep 2012 #106
It's a fundamental difference of opinion that we can't overcome.. X_Digger Sep 2012 #109
Thanks for the link and the new Latin expression I'd never heard before slackmaster Sep 2012 #110
Explain the 9th Amendment ieoeja Sep 2012 #71
It says there can be other rights muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #81
Actually, it says there ARE other Rights... PavePusher Sep 2012 #98
Rather have my rights written in a document than to kiranon Sep 2012 #78
So, we have only those Rights that have been specifically listed in the Constitution? PavePusher Sep 2012 #95
Have you read the Magna Carta? Here's the first clause and a comment about the rest... slackmaster Sep 2012 #97
considering how much hatred is spewed by the religionists, they have no claims here nt msongs Sep 2012 #10
Good thing it's just the UN, or we might have to give a shit. trouble.smith Sep 2012 #11
Ha! nt ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #92
Interesting speculation azurnoir Sep 2012 #13
no, free speech whoever it offends. cali Sep 2012 #19
No, it doesn't say anything about Erdogan talking about this in person at the UN muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #23
yes indeed the article did nicely tie Erdogan and Morsy to Ahmadinejad didn't it ? azurnoir Sep 2012 #34
Would I approve of it glacierbay Sep 2012 #43
ummm there already is government reprisal of a sorts against that azurnoir Sep 2012 #47
No thers's not glacierbay Sep 2012 #48
but one can indeed be fined or sued for using hate speech azurnoir Sep 2012 #49
Only if that hate speech results in physical harm glacierbay Sep 2012 #53
really I suggest you rethink that or what would happen if one called a Black co-worker ni""er azurnoir Sep 2012 #58
I said if the words caused physical harm to the victim. glacierbay Sep 2012 #61
your a Police officer? what city? azurnoir Sep 2012 #62
You can sue for just about anything you want glacierbay Sep 2012 #63
well for your own health azurnoir Sep 2012 #65
Why? glacierbay Sep 2012 #66
No I've known people from both cities azurnoir Sep 2012 #74
Ok glacierbay Sep 2012 #85
Definitely minimum suspension, poss. job loss glacierbay Sep 2012 #64
okay I believe you but in the case of Mpls azurnoir Sep 2012 #69
Well I can assure that I'm not like that glacierbay Sep 2012 #70
yes it is and I am aware that not every Police department is like Mpls azurnoir Sep 2012 #72
Re. Hate speech dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #102
well despite the author of this articles gloom concerning Obama azurnoir Sep 2012 #39
Well, if you base censorship on who gets offended, it's bound to be subjective. nt bemildred Sep 2012 #31
indeed it is subjective and based on Western standards too azurnoir Sep 2012 #36
So what exactly is the Muslim standard? nt hack89 Sep 2012 #41
I actually don't know but at this point it seems to surround blasphemy or antiIslam azurnoir Sep 2012 #46
If their standard is the only option, I will pick western standards. hack89 Sep 2012 #56
how high minded of you I will pick my standards over theirs everytime azurnoir Sep 2012 #57
Individual freedom versus the mob - not a hard choice hack89 Sep 2012 #67
who is the 'mob'? azurnoir Sep 2012 #73
Those violent mobs all over the ME hack89 Sep 2012 #76
Yeah, I just think we'd have better luck if we had a better argument. bemildred Sep 2012 #68
Note to religious people, you do not have a right not to be offended. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #28
They're wrong. 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #30
Obama's response at the UN on freedom of speech pampango Sep 2012 #42
Very, very powerful and eloquent glacierbay Sep 2012 #44
Wow .. best speech ever. obnoxiousdrunk Sep 2012 #59
Thank You Sentath Sep 2012 #88
Awesome! nt fun n serious Sep 2012 #75
How about "international curbs" on executing people for being gay? Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #84
Bull Shit! M_M Sep 2012 #108
Freedom of speech is the fundamental human right Shitty Mitty Sep 2012 #111
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»At U.N., free speech divi...»Reply #42