White House: If exercising your free speech is causing problems for us, we're going to let you know

Back in 2012, President Obama spent a fair amount of time questioning the "judgment" of Charlie Hebdo cartoons that dared insult Islam. At the time, Jay Carney even linked them to the ridiculous lie about the Benghazi attack being caused by a YouTube video.

He said:

Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. But we’ve spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution. In other words, we don’t question the right of something like this to be published; we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it. And I think that that’s our view about the video that was produced in this country and has caused so much offense in the Muslim world.

---

Instead of simply saying: "people have the right to publish what they want, and the Muslim world will have to put on their big boy pants and learn to suck it up," we received a series of long, rambling, pseudo condemnations of the material in question. Yesterday, that tradition continued. White House press secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the administration's condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, and the response was... Well, let's just say it was "unsatisfying." As TownHall reported:

"What my predecessor also said, in the context of those very same comments, was that the publication of that material did not in any way justify an act of violence." "At the same time," Earnest continued, "it would not be the first time that there has been a discussion in this country about the kinds of responsibilities that go along with exercising the right to freedom of speech. And in this scenario, or in the circumstances in which my predecessor was talking about this issue, there was a genuine concern that the publication of some of those materials could put Americans abroad at risk, including American soldiers. And that is something that the commander in chief takes very seriously. And the president and his spokesman, was not then and will not now, be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform."

Again, this administration had the opportunity to clearly state that it supports freedom of expression above all else. They could have sent a cristaline message to the Muslim world that we aren't interested in playing a part in its desire to control free speech. Instead, we get another round of wishy washy doublespeak. First of all: It's ridiculous to characterize the publication of cartoons as a dangerous provocation of radical Islamists. They don't need any provocation. They didn't attack the World Trade Center in 1993 because someone published something they didn't like. They didn't destroy it in 2001 for the same reason. Their motivations are deeply ingrained in the religion and their culture. If their "prophet" is so deeply offended by a couple of cartoons that they feel the need to kill innocents, it's not much of a religion. It's time to stop worrying about their "feelings" and start dealing with their actions. Second: The military exists - solely - to protect our rights. We don't have a responsibility to exercise those rights cautiously in fear of retaliation. We speak as we see fit, and the military defends our Constitutional right to do so. End of story. Finally: The President has no reason to tell anyone that he doesn't like the ways in which they're exercising their rights. That's not even remotely his job. His job is to ensure that those rights exist in perpetuity. Nothing more, and nothing less. This isn't about publishing damaging information regarding military or security plans - this is about cartoons. The implication that he's going to make an example of people who are using their first 1st Amendment protections in the "wrong way" is so backwards that it defies explanation. If anyone in this administration had any temerity, they'd be issuing unequivocal condemnations and they'd be making sure that Islamist attacks on free speech did not go unpunished. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be what we're getting.