White House: We’ll Respond to Threats of Violence, but not Threats of Speech
Let me get this straight:
After some people threatened to fly off the handle and kill people if a pastor in Florida engaged in constitutionally-protected free speech, various Obama Administration officials (from David Petraeus to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama himself) acquiesced to the death threats, pushing the pastor to refrain from expressing himself.
But after a pastor in Florida threatened to engage in constitutionally-protected free speech unless the White House called him, the White House hesitated to give him a call because it might encourage “other extremists” to threaten other acts of free speech.
Why should the president work to curb American freedoms in the face of death threats, then worry about the possibility of appeasing somebody who doesn’t plan to hurt a flea? It seems to me that these responses are morally inverted.