American Freedoms for the Muslim World

As an American we are guaranteed certain rights, one of these rights is the freedom of speech, granted to us by our founding fathers, it is the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, it has since been used as a founding point for the Right to Freedom of Expression which is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in International Human Rights Law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).1
But is there a line that must be drawn? Are we truly ‘All entitled to our own opinion’ or is it true that ‘We are all entitled to our own opinion, the problem is when you share it with everyone else’?
Social Media has always been a great opportunity to express one’s self, from the basics of printing your thoughts on paper for others to read, or to broadcast your voice over the air waves for people to hear, and with the invention of Television you can even share your facial expressions, gestures, and movements. However there has always been a limit to just how much you could express. There have always been ‘rules’ to follow, things that you just don’t put on the television, or the radio, things that you cannot print in the paper. But with the birth of the internet a brand new freedom immerged, suddenly and with great explosion anyone could express themselves in any manner they desired, and there are few ‘rules’ to regulate just how ‘free’ you can be. We see the result of this ‘freedom’ in the recent incident involving a low-budget film: Innocence of Muslims which has caused a great deal of uproar in many countries across the globe. According to The New Yorker ‘The video is crude, both aesthetically and ideologically. It was, presumably, intended to offend, and it is having that effect.’2 The movie has also been blamed for inspiring the killings of American’s around the world. But was that the intent of the author or was it merely a self-expression of their understanding of the Muslim faith? Should we have freedom to express ourselves, even if that expression offends others? Or should there be rules, and laws set in place that limit our freedom for our own protection?
The reaction to this movie is a clear indication of just how dangerous it can be to express ourselves freely, but is that the responsibility of the one expressing himself, the responsibility of the one offended, or the responsibility of the government to limit and thus protect us from ourselves?

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” ~ Benjamin Franklin 3
Our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin being one, believed that it was more important to have freedom than protection. In fact we are warned that if we are willing to give up our freedom in order to gain protection we will lose both. This does not sound appealing to me at all! “Give me Liberty or give me Death!” Patrick Henry said, if the price of living free is death then he was gladly willing to pay. Sadly there are many cases where the individual is ignorant of what they are saying, they base what they believe on what they have heard others say, or something they have seen or read, they have done no real research on the topic and they ‘shoot their mouth off’ without fully understanding what they are saying. When this is the case it is easy to become angry with that person for speaking out of ignorance, and the argument can be made that it is inappropriate to attack someone for something that they say, in fact the argument can be made that you are attacking their right to believe what they see fit even if they are mocking what you believe, but should it be the place of the government to stop that person from stating what they believe?
To answer this question we will have to explore many factors. To start with let us take a closer look at what our founding fathers intended when they said that ‘All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’ and ‘Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.’ We will take a closer look at what this movie is about, and just what the author intended it to be. Why it has offended so many, what the result of that has been, and what could have been done to prevent that offence.
SLIDE TWO
First what does it mean that we are all created equal? Let us say that you plant a garden, in this garden you plant both potatoes and corn, which is more important to you? Is it more beneficial for you to have potatoes? Certainly if the corn was all that you needed you would have only planted that, no in fact both are equally important, this is why you have planted them both, yes they both have different uses, different flavors, textures, and can be used to produce different products such as fuel, however they are both equal in the fact that they are both needed, and cared for by the Gardner. Our founding fathers believed in one creator, they refer to Him as God. It was their belief that God created all mankind, yes we are all different, we have different colors, different appearances, different voices, and yes different opinions, but just as the potato and the corn are equals so too did our founding fathers believe all mankind are. One of us may be better at working on a computer than another; however the other may be better at working on a car than the first. We all have our own gifts to bring, and together we have the ability to do great things, America is a perfect example of this. The understanding is that I am no better than you, but neither are you any better than am I. This is a wonderful concept regardless of what your personal religious beliefs are, and with this understanding the human race has come a long way, we have created many great things and we have simplified each other’s lives.

If we are all created equal then is it safe to presume that all our opinions have merit? Though I have no clue what I am doing working on a car, I can still give my mechanic an idea of what is wrong with the car, so even if an individual has no clue what they are talking about is it not worth listening to them without becoming angry with their ignorance? If we accept that we are all created equal, and we believe our own opinion has merit, then it is logical to accept the other person’s opinion as having merit as well since they are equal to ourselves.
There is however a difference between someone speaking out of ignorance and one mocking what you believe; it is far easier to accept someone for their ignorance than to accept them while they insult your intelligence.
For example if a movie was made depicting the Muslim faith based on the understanding of the Author, and the facts were misguided, or misstated that would be easily enough corrected and the movie could be shown as factual as possible, just as a true director would not make a movie based on another country without doing research on the country in question, so to should the author of a movie based on a religion research said religion, although not all of the facts may be correct or one hundred percent accurate, the movie will be less offensive if there was an effort put forth to portray the religion as factually as possible. Is that the case in Innocence of Muslims? Was the Muslim faith studied and accurately portrayed? It would be simple enough for the author to state “this is the Muslim faith as I understand it” and present the research he or she has done, now he or she may be ignorant when it comes to the Muslim faith and he or she may have been of no help to anyone trying to research the Muslim faith, however that will be far better received than if the Author tells Muslims that they are wrong for being Muslim and Muslims are just stupid. This is insulting, in this case the author is not just voicing an opinion, you may not agree with the Muslim faith, however the Muslim would disagree with you and probable loves the Muslim faith and their heritage, however he will accept that you do not feel the same, the problem is not that you do not believe what he believes the problem is when you degrade what he believes. So the problem is not ignorance, but rather arrogance. If we are all created equal, and all of our opinions are equal, then it is logical to presume that all our beliefs are equal, thus the problem arises when you indicate through your words, or actions that your beliefs are better, more grounded, or perhaps are the only true beliefs. You belittle someone else’s beliefs while raising your own; this I believe is against what the founding fathers of America intended when they wrote “All men are created equal”.
Humans have always had a built in sense of pride, a hard wired sense of superiority, we are naturally drawn to people who believe what we believe, and it is natural and easy for us to judge others because they do not believe what we believe. It is easy to assume that we are right in our beliefs and therefore everyone else must be wrong in theirs, far greater however to understand that other’s beliefs are equal to our own, for others are equal to ourselves. It is my belief that this is the concept our founding fathers had, that this is something they understood and wanted to form a country on, to form a country of mutual respect for our fellow man, a country of acceptance, understanding, and dear I say it tolerance.
SLIDE THREE
Next let us take a closer look at what our founding fathers meant when they said that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. They are saying that certain rights, such as the freedom to believe what one chooses, is a right given by God not by any man or any law; this means that neither man nor law can ever take this right away. So here we see that our founding fathers believed that we all have the right to our own opinion. However this does not say, nor does it meant that we have the God given right to voice that opinion, and it certainly does not say nor does it mean that we have the God given right to judge others for not believing what we believe, or belittling, or degrading them for what they believe. At this stage the argument can still be made that in order to protect us from ourselves the law could take away our right to speak what we believe, we have merely concluded that we have the God given write to believe what we want, and not the God given right to share that belief with anyone else.
If we are all equal then we are all endowed with the same rights, our founding fathers believed these rights came from God, however even if you are inclined to believe in evolution you must accept the premise that we all evolved from the same origin, and in the same fashion and therefore we all must be equal, therefore the premise that we all have certain rights that cannot be taken away must also be accepted. For example in the belief of evolution it is accepted that man evolved to the point of having thumbs this is an unalienable right, no person or law can dictate that a person should be born without a thumb. Let us get a basic understanding of unalienable rights, if for example you purchase a car, but that car has a lien on it, you do not actually own that car, the lien holder owns that car, they are simply allowing you to use said car until you pay them back, in the same manner you do not have to be placed under lock and key, you are ‘free’ to live your life, however this right can be taken away from you by the authority if you do not ‘play by their rules’ however there are things in your life that no one can put a lien on, one of those things are your thoughts, no one can tell you what to think, how to think, when to think, where to think, or why you should think, this right cannot have a lien placed on it, it can be owned only by you, therefore it cannot be taken away from you, it is unalienable.
Although you are free to believe what you like it is still a good practice to discover for yourself what you believe, for example there are many people today that go to church every Sunday, they do this not because they have studied all religions and have concluded that this is the truth, but rather because they have been doing it for so long, it is simply what they believe is the right thing to do, not because of any research they have done. They have been told what to believe and they chose to believe what they have been told because it was easier than going out and searching for the truth themselves. And when they are told that they are not the only ones who believe what they are taught to believe they are empowered, and when they are informed that there are those who disagree with them they are enraged and immediately assume they are right and the other party is wrong. They are trying to put a lien on what the other party believes, they are trying to take away their right to believe as they see fit. Again this is neither what our founding fathers wanted nor what they had intended. Simply because you do not understand a belief, or the one who believes it does not mean that it is wrong, if you examine the many religions of the world you will find many similarities in them all, even in evolution as I have pointed out both evolution and creationism reflect that the human race began at a single point, from a single form. Both indicate that we have certain unalienable rights, it does not take long to study ones beliefs and conclude that though we may disagree on some points we still poses the ability to co-exist peacefully, understanding that my beliefs are no better than your beliefs, nor are your beliefs any better than mine. They are simply different. It is when we accept this premise that we are able to come together, work together, and together accomplish great things. And this is what our founding fathers intended.
SLIDE FOUR
Liberty or Safety, which is the better choice for mankind? Our founding fathers clearly believed that it was the government’s responsibility to insure our liberty and our personal responsibility to insure our own security, this is the reason for the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Note the second amendment does not say that we have the right to have police to insure our safety, nor does it say that we have a right to a military to insure our safety, it does not say that martial law shall be enforced to insure our safety. It says we have a right to a militia, free men and women standing together with the right to keep and bear arms, because that is what is necessary for our safety. It is the place of the government to insure we have the liberty to provide for ourselves safety.
If this is an accurate understanding of our founding fathers intentions then it is clear that no law is needed to insure our safety, however there are times when there arises a need for government provided security, this has been seen time and time again in the course of human history with war, riots, and natural disasters. So where does the line need to be drawn? Where does it stand that we will need protection from ourselves? Is that to be provided from the government? With the movie Innocence of Muslims the author has offended a group of people, this offence has been implicated in the deaths of several people that were not in any way involved with this movie, therefore is it the place of the government to provide safety for the ones that are effected by the author? Is it still true that in providing safety the government is removing liberity? In this case I do not believe so, the author has placed others in danger, perhaps inadvertently but the threat is no greater or less based on the intensions of the author. The author did not simply place himself in harm’s way he placed American’s in harm’s way. Although there has been no implication as to who the author is, or that the author is an American, the resulting rage was the same, and has been targeted from one group of people to another. The question still stands where does the responsibility lie? Should it have been the government’s job to insure this film was never made, or never aired? Is it the responsibility of the individual who filmed this to not have filmed it? Or is it the responsibility of the Muslim’s to not have reacted in the manner they did? If the blame must fall, where should it land?
If the responsibility lies with the government, how then shall the laws be enforced that will best provide both liberty and safety? Should the law punish those who speak what they believe or the ones who seek vengeance because they do not agree with what was said? Clearly if American’s were killed out of retaliation of this film, that is a crime and should not be tolerated, however if it is true that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then the Muslim rage that led to the killing of innocent Americans was a reaction to the film. Where then does the blame need to fall? And how is the government to handle this? Should the law enforce guidelines on what can be aired, and placed on the internet? Just how ‘free’ should we be?
If freedom of speech does not protect one from the consequences of what they say then there must be consequences to what they say, is it, or should it be the place of the government to prevent them from saying anything at all? Or should there be consequences to what they have said after the fact? In the case of Innocence of Muslim’s the damage has been done, the film has been made, the reaction has been made, the question remains what is to be done now? Currently the film is still available online, one of the problems with this is that the internet is a worldwide community, therefore what is alright in one county may not be alright in another, this makes it very difficult to regulate. However the offence has been made and linked to America, therefor it must fall on America to dictate the consequence.
SLIDE FIVE
Just as there are different consequences to different crimes so to should there be different consequences to different offences, before we discussed the difference between an offence made in ignorance, and one made in arrogance, there should be different consequence for the two. If there has been an offence based out of one’s ignorance on the topic, then the ignorance can be corrected with research and study on the topic and a more accurate depiction can be made, and thus the offence can be overcome, if however the offence has been made out of arrogance, then the offender has no moral objective to research or study the culture or religion and therefore the offence cannot be overcome and the consequences must be more harsh.
To determine the consequence we must first determine the crime, was it the intent of the author to offend the Muslim faith? Was it the intent of the author to educate others in regards to the Muslim faith? Or was it the intent of the Author to Mock the Muslim faith? In the movie: Innocence of Muslims it is clear that the author is mocking the Muslim faith. It does not appear that the author has done any real research on the Muslim faith at all, and they are clearly deriving their belief of what the Muslim faith is from what they have heard, or read, or seen and have made this film out of ignorance. However based on the content of the film it is clear that the author does not approve of the Muslim faith and assumes their faith is of higher stature. This is an indication that the film is made out of arrogance, and it is the arrogance that has led to the ignorance. Because the author does not see Muslim’s as being equal to him/herself then he or she has made no attempt to understand the Muslim faith and portray it in a respectful manner. Therefore the consequence must be greater, because the offence was greater, I have said before that an offence made out of ignorance will be far greater received than an offence made out of arrogance, clearly we see that with this film as the response has been alleged killings of innocent people. The response is greater therefore to correct the offence the consequence must be greater.
What then should the consequence be, should the film be removed from the internet? Is this a punishment to the author of the worldwide community of the internet? Should the author be placed on trial and face jail time? Should the author be fined? What about the actors in the film, is there a need to hold them accountable as well? In this film the actors claim innocent to any offence and say the offences where dubbed in after they had read the lines. This can be confirmed upon watching the film. Therefore is there a case against them at all or does all the blame fall to the author? If the author was acting out of arrogance what should the punishment be?
If it is confirmed that the film has led to the murder of innocent American’s should the author be tried for murder? If it is confirmed that his or her film was filmed out of arrogance, and that its purpose was to incite violence among the Muslim people and that this violence has led to the deaths of innocent people then the law indicates that he or she can be tried for murder, freedom of speech does not protect against anything that will incite violence.4 If however it is proven that the intent of the author was not to incite violence but to portray they own personal beliefs, even if in a mocking fashion, then there has been no crime and therefore the author is protected under the freedom of speech. Therefore the only way to determine what the consequences are to be is to accurately understand the intent of the author, the only way to do this is to find the author and investigate the intent of the film. The actors have said that the intent of the film was to portray the way life was then verse now, however this cannot be confirmed without the investigation of the author. Complicating this matter is that the author has not come forward and to this date is unknown, thus making it impossible to investigate the true motives, and therefore accurately determine if a crime has been committed and if there is protection under the freedom of speech.
SLIDE SIX
Although the author’s identity remains unknown there are clues that we are able to piece together to build a picture of who he or she is. Just as a criminal department will build a profile for a wanted criminal so too are we able to build a profile for the author of this film based on the evidence provided in the film itself. We can clearly see that the author of this film is bias, and opinionated in regards to the Muslim faith, we see that the author is actually afraid of others judging him or her, while he or she has no problem authoring a film that judges others, this is evidence in the fact that there is no clearly mentioned author, there are no credits, and the author has not come forward and claimed responsibility for this film, this in itself tells us a great deal about this author, he or she is clearly suffering from an illusion of superiority and a fear and self-doubt complex. One reason for this complex could be because they are aware that they have created a film that has caused such an uprising against it, that they fear they will be judged and held accountable for the resulting rage the film has brought. Which leads us to the conclusion that the individual has a superiority complex, they believe that the Muslim faith is wrong and that the Muslims should be ‘exposed’ however they themselves wish to stay hidden and remain ‘un-exposed’ however earlier we discussed our equality, if we agree that we have all arrived to this end from a single starting point, and regardless of your religious opinions and beliefs this is a clear fact, both for creationism and evolution, then we must all be equal to the end that we all have a right to our own opinions and beliefs. Therefor it is in my opinion that this author should be exposed for having ‘exposed’ the Muslim faith, which personally I do not feel this film has exposed any facet of the Muslim faith it merely degrades it. However if this person is so insistent on degrading others it is my belief that they too must be ‘exposed’ and held accountable for what they have done. I am not passing judgment on this person and I am not saying they have committed a crime, I am saying an investigation should be held to determine that, and since he or she is so passionate about ‘exposing’ others, I think they should come forward and allow themselves to be exposed. In short if you don’t start anything there will not be anything, but if you do not wish to have yourself judged then do not judge others, and once you have judged others do not hide, and hope that no one will judge you! Again you are no better than the ones you judge, nor are the ones you judge any better than you, the sooner you realize this truth and accept it then the further you will go as a human, and the further you will help mankind go as a race.
That having been said I still stand by my previous statement that we have no evidence that a crime has been committed, we do not yet know if the individual is protected under the first amendment, the questions still stand where should the line be drawn in regards to social media and freedom of speech? What was the intent of the author? Did the author intend for the violence that has resulted? Have there been innocent people killed because of this person’s lack of understanding, study, and blatant arrogance in regards to the Muslim faith? Is the author being hypocritical and cowardice for creating a film, without being truthful to the actors in regards to the films true intent, then dubbing over what the actors said to make the film degrading to the Muslim faith, which has now caused controversy, and then hiding as to not be judged? Before we can answer these questions and therefore make an accurate profile for our author we must first review this film in its entirety, and gain an understanding of the story line, the characters, the region, the religion, and the culture. We must understand what the actors are trying to portray, the message that is presented in the film, the target audience, and we must try to understand what the author intended when this film was being written, why was the change in script dubbed in instead of the scenes re-shot5? Could this be because there were no changes in scripts, but in fact two separate scripts? In other words we must do what the author clearly did not, we must do research.

SLIDE SEVEN
The film is ‘Innocence of Muslims’ the author is unknown, the actors were lied to, the film is degrading and judgmental. The film starts with the images of Muslim Militants, in what appears to be an attempt to portray the Muslims as violent. This in itself is hypocritical as there is no country in the world that has not seen violence, violence is not isolated to the Muslim faith. After five minutes of this meager attempt to portray a violent people the film begins with a military man, and doctor having a conversation, in the course of the conversation the military man indicates that if his wife were dead he would marry a young girl. Suddenly a group of Muslims come down the street with the intent to kill ‘those forsaken chirstians’6 The doctor returns home with his wife and daughter, the house is clearly a Christian home as there is a cross on the wall, and a picture of what appears to be Jesus. He begins to teach his daughter that man plus (X) is an Islamic terrorist, the implication being that (X) is the Muslim faith.
The next scene is an explanation of the prophet Muhammad, it depicts him as being a bastard child raised by a man as one of his slaves. In the very next scene Muhammad is grown. In the scenes that follow he is implicated as being simple minded, without a full understanding or knowledge of a mature adult. Yet he is depicted as a leader whom others will follow without question. The Quran is depicted as being a religion beneficial, and derived for the purpose of a man’s pleasure. In one scene Muhammad is accused of wanting to marry a young girl, the father is willing to allow this because Muhammad has “wealth and power”.
In another scene an older woman is torn apart by camels because she will not accept the ways of Muhammad. Then a young man is killed with a sward while his wife is made to watch, again this is done because he will not accept Muhammad’s was. Then it is depicted that Muhammad has several wives, and he is not able to keep them all happy, and he is ‘cheating’ on one wife with another by having intercourse with the wrong one on the wrong night, in the wrong bed.
The final scene is a ‘call to arms’ for Muslims to rise up against any who do not follow the ways of Muhammad.
This is a very short film stretching under nineteen minutes in total run time, with the first five minutes being a picture collage, it is evident that the scenes were not filmed on location but rather with a green screen, the audio has clearly been dubbed in several places, the costumes and makeup are very crude, the actors were seemingly not researched or chosen for the part, instead it seems as though the author was simply in a rush to produce the film and was willing to hire any actor to play the roles needed. None of what is depicted in the film has any supporting evidence as being true, there have been no quotes, there is credit given, the Quran is slandered as being bias toward men and sex, but it is never quoted nor is there any supporting evidence given to this end. There is no evidence or convictions given to support the claim that Muhammad had several wives or that he was a pedophile, there are many accusations with no supporting evidence, and seemingly no research or study done at all, there are no facts even given, this film is clearly made with complete ignorance, and is made out of arrogance, the author assuming no need to support any of the claims made in the film, only that he or she is right, simply because they believe they are. Even for a low budget film this is a disgrace to true artist, authors, actors, and writers who do their homework, study what they are depicting and do their best to portray as accurately as possible the story being told, this film is no less than a bias opinion of the author who assumes he or she is better than any Muslim which I strongly disagree with, however having said all this, that is my opinion, and in the case of criminal charges I have none to bring forth against the author of Innocence of Muslims, though I disagree with the film and the lack of research done, I support his or her right to believe that their personal religion is better for them than the Muslim faith.
SLIDE EIGHT
In closing it is my opinion that our founding fathers believed we are all created equal, that we all have the right to decide for ourselves what we wish to believe, that we all have the right to speak what we believe, that we can, have, and will go far by respecting each other in regards to these rights. It is my opinion that with the freedom of speech comes the freedom to cause harm. That it is necessary to provide laws that will protect not only ourselves but others from the harm that may arise do to our ignorance and arrogance, I personally believe that one should not speak out of ignorance or arrogance, if you do not understand something and you wish to have an opinion on it then research it, form an honest and fact based opinion, only then should you speak, however there should be no law to enforce this and thus you will always have people who speak out of ignorance and arrogance, this will always pose a threat to innocent people, in the case of ‘Innocence of Muslims’ it is clear to me that no research was done, this has been made purely out of spite and a false since of superiority. I believe that the author could be traced by talking with the actors, the directors, and the camera men. I do not believe that any crime has been committed by any of the for mentioned. I do not believe at this time that any crime has been committed by the author, however I do believe that an investigation should be done on the author, if the author does not like this then I say he should not have produced a film that was degrading and judgmental of others if he or she did not wish to be degraded or judged. I do believe that if it is proven that there have been innocent people killed as a direct result of the film he or she produces, and if it is determined that he or she intended for violence to arise as a result of this film he or she should be tried for murder. As for the question where must the line be drawn, I believe the answer is simple, there does not need to be a line, either you have freedom or you do not. I am of the belief that if you trade your liberty for safety you will have neither. That being said there are consquences for your actions, I have the freedom to smash my thumb with a hammer, however I must live with the consequences of having done that, in the same manner I believe and will fight for the right of the author to voice his or her opinion, and his or her belief and faith, however when you post something out of arrogance, you must accept the consequences for that, do not hide and hope that no one finds you. If you are innocent then state that, stand tall and say that it was never your intention that anyone be hurt but that you merely wished to show the Muslim faith as you understood it. And allow this to be a learning experience for you, learn that the next film you create you must do your research, if you are a true artist and a true author then you do not wish for this to be your only work, you do not wish to only produce low budget films, my friend you will never become a great author if you do not do what great authors do, and what great authors do is research, lots and lots of research.
As for the punishment if the author is found not to be protected under the first amendment, I will leave that to a judge and a jury, I do not enjoy being judged therefore it is in my opinion to my best interest to not judge others, I am not and have no desire to study law, therefore it is not my place to pass any blame toward you or your film, I did not care for the film, I have no intent to watch the film again, and I will not promote your film to others. I am sorry to all those whom this film has degraded and to all those who have taken offence to this film, I ask that they not judge a group for the actions of one, just because one person steals something from a store does not mean that everyone in the store is a thief, in the same way simply because one person mocked a culture and religion does not mean that we all feel the some. It is my desire to see the author come forward, an investigation be done and justice severed.

Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech 2. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/09/the-innocence-of-muslims-viral-video-gone-wrong.html 3. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/anyone_who_trades_liberty_for_security_deserves/289390.html 4. http://www.business2community.com/social-media/7-things-the-first-amendment-doesnt-protect-0129234 5. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/18/opinion/la-oe-crawley-innocence-of-muslims-actor-20120918 6. Innocence of Muslims [6:06]

Movie can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ySE-yYeelE&feature=related SLIDE ONE: Intro
Should the law punish those who speak what they believe or the ones who seek vengeance because they do not agree with what was said?
Should the law punish those who speak what they believe or the ones who seek vengeance because they do not agree with what was said?
SLIDE TWO: All men are created equal
SLIDE THREE: Unalienable Rights
SLIDE FOUR: Liberty or Safety?
SLIDE FIVE: Ignorance and Arrogance
SLIDE SIX: About the Author of Innocents of Muslims
SLIDE SEVEN: The Movie
SLIDE EIGHT: Closing