Freedom is Absolute… Unless it Causes Muslims to Kill People

There’s something particularly “true” about this taking place in the nation’s capital where the party of misrule sits in the White House and does its best to allow Muslim anger to determine what freedoms we will or will not have. The latest report from Pamela Geller is that the supporters of allowing Muslim violence to determine the nature of our freedoms are pulling ahead in DC.

The Judge went out of her way to validate and substantiate the ridiculous premise of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), that the AFDI pro-freedom ad would endanger passengers on the D.C. subways and thus must not be posted, or at least delayed until some (fanciful) time when the jihad threat would subside.
Philip Staub, the lawyer for WMATA, invoked the international Muslim riots that have been blamed (falsely) on the Muhammad video, and said the WMATA had received an email threatening them if they posted our ad. He was, in other words, counseling submission to violent Muslim intimidation, and the curtailing of the freedom of speech to appease savages. He made the laughable argument that if the ad ran after November 1, the threat would have subsided by then, and would be well — as if the jihad terror threat would completely die down by then. Judge Collyer then asked him if the ads could be posted sooner if they were moved away from the train platforms, so that passengers would be less likely to get caught up in fights or terrorist attacks over them. He seemed open to that idea.
The whole issue about moving the ads represented the judge’s attempt to find a way to accommodate the WMATA’s fearmongering argument that the ad would endanger passengers. And is that now the American response to threats of violence from a fascist ideology – to accede and submit to that very same fascist ideology?

Well obviously.

This is how it works now. The First Amendment will only apply to things that are not likely to cause Muslims to kill people. We will still have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, there will just be some words added to it. After every single sentence, it will say, “Unless it will cause Muslims to kill people.”

Never mind whether any of this is or isn’t a pretext. The bottom line is that we are accepting the premise that Muslim violence justifies censorship. And then Muslim violence becomes the instrument of censorship as the terrorists get exactly what they want through violence.
by Daniel Greenfield