Proof That Hollywood’s Anti-War Propaganda Has Claimed Lives

This isn’t a call for censorship, but for responsibility.  You see about a year ago, an Islamofascist idiot killed two of our airmen, and two Americans helped to apprehend their killer and there have been developments in the case:

Germany's government presented the nation's highest civilian award Monday to two Americans who helped apprehend an Islamic extremist after he attacked a U.S. Air Force bus last year and killed two airmen.

Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich awarded the Federal Cross of Merit to U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Trevor Brewer and civilian airport employee Lamar Conner, both of whom chased the suspect until police could apprehend him, saying their deeds "were an example for all of us."

Arid Uka, a 21-year-old Kosovo Albanian, is currently on trial for the March 2 slayings and has admitted to the charges. He faces up to life in prison, and a verdict and sentence are expected Thursday.

And what motivated the attacks?  Well, let’s hear from the Islamofascist himself:

Uka gave a teary confession as his Frankfurt state court trial opened in August, saying that the night before the attack he had seen a video on Facebook that purported to show American soldiers raping a teenage Muslim girl. It turned out to be a scene from the 2007 Brian De Palma anti-war film "Redacted," taken out of context.

Uka told the court the video prompted him to do anything possible to prevent American soldiers from going to Afghanistan.

Now who knows?  Maybe something else would set him off, but for a Hollywood that has produced endless streams of anti-war propaganda, but hardly anything in praise of even the Afghan war—you know, the one everyone claimed to support—it is a predictable result that all this anti-war propaganda would have a body count.  The founders didn’t protect freedom of speech because they wanted us to have no restraints, but because the founders believed that the only restraints should be self-imposed.  So we are not excused from our moral responsibilities.

And I will add this, too.  I am sure there is hardly a liberal alive who would advocate censoring this movie and I would agree, but here’s the thing.  It’s also corporate speech—so according to the liberal view, the Supreme Court should have ruled that corporations have no expressive rights and thus we could have censored that movie freely, right?  Just like Hillary: The Movie, right?

Or do you think maybe the Supreme Court was right to say that the First Amendment applies to even corporate speech?

Hat tip: Daily Caller.

------------------------

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.