"free speech worries"??

That's like going to a friend's funeral and saying you're concerned about his health.

You think, LA Times??? Nah, you're just being "paranoid".

Here's a newsflash for the staff of the LA Times. You can stop lying now.

We all know the multiple attacks on American embassies on September 11, 2012, were terrorist attacks.

We know it.

You know it.

Stop lying.

Stop trying to cover up the truth for your Jew-hating, America-hating boyfriend, Barack Hussein Obama.

Hitler 'arrested' anyone who crossed him.

Yeh, the LAT and LSM and legal activists worry about civil liberties a lot.

And when a Republican is President they say so.

Innocence of Muslims is a funny video. all should watch it. Only 13 minutes long and free in YouTube.

As far as I can tell the Communists have eliminated the video on "Dreams of my Real Father" from the Internet. Hussein is clamping down.

Uh, nice try LA Times. Let me help you with this. This administration's foreign policy failures culminated in the murder of Americans on what most consider to be our soil . Our ambassador was abused before his execution in a way that we can't even talk about. Hillary Clinton's phone rang at 3 AM to hear a very panicked Valerie Jarret -causing her to roll over and ask Janet Napolitano if she had an anti-muslim video in her ever-growing collection of internet hate group information. Well, I'm pretty sure that's what happened ,anyway.

When we go after a left-leaning publication like the Times for publishing an article that raises questions about whether a person has been deprived of First Amendment rights by a prosecutor who may lean toward the Obama administration, we are doing a disservice.

Remember that most of those who read the Times are likely to be left-leaning. Anything in "their" paper that makes them have doubts about the present Administration is a good thing.

Once again, it is good to view these pieces in these publications through the eyes of those most apt to read them, not ours.

A tip: You need to get past the first paragraph to read about the "free speech worries".

(hit submit too soon)

Some excerpts:

But others question whether Nakoula's notoriety — and the global political fallout over the contents of the film — is placing more scrutiny on the filmmaker and prompting federal officials to be harsher with him.

"Certainly the sequence of events looks very much as though this man has been arrested and held on account of his producing a film," said Michael W. McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit who now directs the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. "It sends exactly the wrong message abroad, because when people are becoming violent to try to pressure the U.S. to violate someone's constitutional rights, we ought to be going out of our way to make it clear that we will not accede to that kind of pressure."

And:

News of Nakoula's arrest prompted some critics to charge that the probation violation was a thinly veiled punishment for the film's message. A Wall Street Journal editorial called his detention a 1st Amendment affront saying that even speech that "causes the White House headaches abroad" is still constitutionally protected. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote on his blog that the case "raises obvious concerns that the Administration is again defending free speech while quietly moving to punish those who cause religious strife."

In an interview, Turley, a criminal defense attorney who has represented high-profile terrorism suspects accused of violent speech, said the charges against Nakoula had "common elements of pretextual charges." He said the government could have been hoping that putting Nakoula behind bars would appease those incensed by the film.

He said the arrest could send the wrong message to the public: "Even if you have a right to say something, the government can still choose to punish you on other grounds."