Point Missed

There has been much just criticism of Secretary Clinton's "nuanced" statement on the recent events in Egypt and Libya.  She said:

The U.S. government has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and messages. But there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence.

[snip]

Now I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.

It is, of course, absurd to dignify murder by street thugs as if it were a matter of cultural misunderstanding. But more fundamentally, when did it become the business of the Government of the United States to characterize this or that Constitutionally protected speech as being "reprehensible," or to "absolutely reject" the "content and messages" of that speech?

We have to wonder if Secretary Clinton absolutely rejects the content and messages of Monty Python's Life of Brian, and finds it reprehensible?