Sarah Chayes '' Innocence Of Muslims'

Contributing writer to the Opinions section of the LA Times and member of the Carnegie Endowment, Sarah Chayes, in her editorial “Does ‘Innocence of Muslims’ meet the free-speech test?” discusses whether the movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ is protected under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. In other words, it is being debated whether this film is simply offensive or it was intentionally written and posted on the internet to incite violence and put the lives of many at risk. Sarah Chayes’ purpose in writing this editorial is to make a distinction between what is protected free speech and what is not and to insinuate that ‘Innocence of Muslims’ does not meet the requirements for protection under the 1st Amendment. Chayes adopts

She also points out that the content expressed in ‘Innocence of Muslims’ is not protected under the Constitution. Chayes appeals to the audience with the authority of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. by referring to the most famous 1st Amendment cases; Schenck vs. United States. She quotes Holmes as saying “the most stringent protection would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic” in order to make it clear that there are limits to the protection of free speech in the United States. Sarah Chayes’ reference to Holmes reflects the seriousness and the magnitude of the 1st Amendment and implies to her readers that ‘Innocence of Muslims’ cannot be, perhaps, protected because of its creation of a “clear and present danger” and its indirect association with the death of the U.S. Ambassador Christopher

Chayes appeals to her readers by using the influence of Amendment authority Anthony Lewis, who is on the side of those who believe ‘Innocence of Muslims’ is deliberately made to incite uproar. Lewis states that “based on my understanding of the events”, the film meets the imminence standard, meaning that it was intended to cause violence. Chayes uses the appeal of Anthony Lewis in order to make her claim more credible and make her readers see her as trustworthy. Chayes has a bitter tone and uses negative connotation words on this section of the article to express her unhappiness with the release time frame of ‘Innocence of Muslims’. She uses words such as “deliberately publicized”, “sensitive, and “spark violence” in order to point out to her readers that ‘Innocence of Muslims’ was intentionally publicized near 9/11 as a way of demanding a response from Muslims, and perhaps Americans,