Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

I have nothing to add


  1. JuliaM says:

    “Well, that’s not a hard question..”

    It’s clearly too hard for this guy!

  2. CountingCats says:

    It’s not too hard for this guy, it’s too hard for the administration he represents.

  3. Lynne says:

    Perhaps the weasel man trying to avoid answering the question should be referred to the constitution the leader of the current administration swore to uphold.

  4. GW says:

    The Supreme Court in 1952 was quite clear on the issue of whether the makers of a sacrilegious film could be prosecuted for their speech:

    [T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.


    That is long settled law in the U.S. It is surprising that one of the government’s top attorneys either is unaware or chooses to ignore it. Rope. Tree.

  5. Paul Marks says:

    The maker of the film was very publically arrested the other day (television pictures of the event were meant to please the forces of Islam). Glenn Reynolds reported it well.

    “He was not arrested for making the film – he was arrested for…..”

    Yes of course, silly me.

  6. jameshigham says:

    Says it all really, doesn’t it?

  7. NickM says:

    First amendment be buggered!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: