The violence and rhetorical tumult in the Middle East following the posting on YouTube of the video entitled "The Innocence of Muslims" affords a number of teaching opportunities. One that comes quickly to mind is the lack of universality in law and in basic legal philosophy. Teaching rudimentary U.S. constitutional principles to undergraduate students reminds one that even intelligent college students may not easily attain a full grasp on the concepts of free speech. However, even if just through popular culture and everyday exposure, students do seem to understand that American Free Speech concepts protect expression even when the expression is hurtful to others. As long as the speech is not certain to incite imminent violence at the time and place where it is made, even disgusting and distasteful speech is protected.
However, this is not a universal concept. NPR broadcast an interview with Harvard International Law professor Noah Feldman in which he explains that government officials and educated persons, even in countries that embrace Free Speech principles harbor the misconception that the US Government may censor harmful or hateful expression. As a result, when the US took no action to remove or censor the offending video, the implication was that the US government was complicit or in support of the views expressed therein. The audio report is available here and provides an excellent source for assignment or class discussion in a Legal Environment class. Here are some selected quotes from Professor Feldman:
"I had conversations with highly educated Tunisians — people high in the government — who were genuinely astonished to discover that, under U.S. law, we couldn't ban speech like that precisely because any incitement that might occur is distant in time, distant in place and not at all certain to occur. ...
"And it's actually a problem when people elsewhere actually think, including reasonable people, that the United States government must be complicit in something like the anti-Muslim film because we haven't prohibited it."
"In the U.S., we value the liberty of the speaker much more highly than either the dignity of the person who feels insulted or the state's interest in trying to avoid violent protest. ...
Professor Feldman also notes that American legal communities have discussed, whether the technological advances that have made global reach of communication more easily attainable should affect the American concept of time, space and imminence for incitement purposes.
This interview is a worthwhile resource on a current and complex topic in the law.
Justice Breyer ponders whether the internet changes the size of the "crowded theatre":