There is a fairly well defined limit to free speech, e.g. yelling "fire!" in a theater. Burning a Koran, just to fuck with people, is probably in "yelling fire" territory.
But as far as Obama's quip against Sony goes... I was really surprised to read that. I think it's tone-deaf for Obama to call out Sony. First of all, it was the theaters not Sony who refused to show it. Second of all, it was the FBI who told the theaters they couldn't guarantee they weren't going to get hit by terrorists on Christmas. What?!
Yes, the capitulation is absolutely shocking and terrible. That's what Obama should be saying. But victim blaming? It's like blaming the kidnapping victim for doing what they're told so they don't get hurt. Sony still has a gun to their head, they are still being actively extorted!
Edit: @icebraining set me straight.
No, no it's not. It's an insensitive, assholish and petty action, but it does not constitute an incitation to immediate violation of the law, including but not exclusively because it was announced beforehand.
The other five main exceptions to free speech protection include; Defamation, Obscenity, Sedition, and...
Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.
The government also has the right to restrict speech in order to promote a "compelling government interest," such as national security. This standard is extraordinarily strict and hard to prove, making it a rather narrow exception to free speech.
[1] - https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/free-speech-primer-what-c...
I thought that the courts would look at it under this 6-part framework and they might possibly decide, under the facts and circumstances of Terry Jones for example, that it falls under "fighting words" or maybe some kind of hate speech.
But now I've read up more on Terry Jones and what actually happened, and, you're right, the consensus was it was protected speech.
Pulling an Obama quote from Wikipedia;
President Barack Obama was asked on September 9, 2010, on ABC's "Good Morning America" about the Quran burning controversy. He said, "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." He said, "I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We're already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he's making." "I just hope he understands that what he is proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans, that this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "He says he's someone who is motivated by his faith ... I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he's engaging in.” Asked if the event could be stopped, Obama replied, "My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning … but that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us."[42]
I hope not. Making capitulation to a threat, implied or explicit would be the exact opposite of freedom of speech. You would not be able to speak out against... anything.
Making a movie about the assassination of the NK leader doesn't imply hate. I'm pretty sure making the movie wasn't about the hate against NK per se, but rather a comedy about the situation in an oppressed country.
If you burn a koran/bible I'm pretty sure we all know what that means: You hate the religion and wan't it to die.
As you can see the difference is that the first one falls under free- and the other under hate-speech.
Now if you ask me, it's still wrong to hate against those who burn "holy books" or whatever. In my opinion hate speech is integral to having free spech, even if it should be watched carefully (I really don't wan't a third reich here in germany) - something that has been lost in the past couple years. But it's important to differenciate between both.
In the case of the movie, the audience was American moviegoers, with the producers solely intending to amuse the audience.
In the case of the Koran burning, the audience was Muslims worldwide, with full knowledge that the act was under intense media scrutiny, and with forewarning that it would likely result in riots and violence. He chose to act in a way that he knew would result in riots and violence. It wasn't "hate speech." It was an act that was engaged in consciously with knowledge that it would likely provoke a violent response engaged in out of pure malice.
As far as hate speech, in the U.S. hate speech is legal -- as it should be. Being able to express ideas, no matter how repugnant, is the very foundation of the United States. Besides, who determines hate speech? If I say white people are less intelligent than Asians-- is that hate, or my own (distorted) view of the world? It's a very slippery slope to start classifying ideas and banning ideas based in some social norm or the moment.
Which is a completely legal thing to do, provided there is actually a fire.