Andrea Mitchell wants the French Ambassador to explain why it is legal to publish anti-Islamic satire.
Andrea Mitchell, having been married for years to Alan Greenspan, going back to when he was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is an amazing embodiment of how establishment media is in bed with the government. And she happily demonstrates the problem.
The Daily Caller reports, “Andrea Mitchell To French Ambassador: Why Are ‘Provocative’ Anti-Muslim Cartoons Permitted?”
The host of MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” asked French ambassador to the United States Gérard Araud why “provocative” anti-Muslim cartoons were permissible in France, when they had taken steps to ban Holocaust denial.
In this case, I have to admit that if Mitchell had kept her question to French law and custom, it would almost seem understandable. The fact is that France has a bunch of censorship rules and it is a reasonable question why some speech remains legal. It also reminds us that, if more Muslims win elections, France already has the legal precedents in place to ban such satire.
The tradition of free speech, it all began in France during the 1700′s and 18th century. But there are laws in France, laws that say you cannot deny the Holocaust, laws that say you cannot deny the Armenian genocide. So why is it permissible to be as provocative as these anti-Muslim cartoons were? This is a debate we’re having in the United States as well, you know.
Who’s “we”? Are we learning what goes on among Andrea Mitchell’s friends?
Out here in flyover country, we think the First Amendment has entirely settled the issue. It is that amendment that clearly articulates Andrea Mitchell’s right to do her job without interference from the government.
Of course, that is the problem. Mitchell doesn’t see herself as needing any legal protection from government restriction. She represents the ruling class. She is going to get all the freedom she wants, not as a natural right she shares with all other human beings, but as a government PR agent. She wants to express the perspective of our ruling class and has no interest in seeing a variety of ugly deviations from the will of that ruling class (including many I don’t like either, but don’t want to gag) be permitted the same freedom.
So she asks a question that recognizes France’s ambiguous record on freedom of speech and then pretends that the United States has the same legal heritage.
No, it does not!
By the way, I’m not claiming Mitchell is always incapable of opposing the regime, but it seems she only does so when she is forced into it—when to do otherwise would “blow her cover” pretending to be a real journalist.