text_1: "The Obama administration ""supported Muslim allies trying to establish a new international blasphemy standard."
text_2: "Turley said that the Obama administration ""supported Muslim allies trying to establish a new international blasphemy standard."" The accuracy of this statement hinges on how you understand that word ""supported."" American diplomats did endorse a UN resolution that avoided words about restricting speech that defamed a religion, but left open the door to criminalizing speech that was ""incitement to immediate violence based on religion."" The administration, as well as some free-speech advocacy groups, saw this as progress. But blasphemy laws remain on the books in Muslim nations, and the largest international body that speaks for those nations has said plainly that such laws are appropriate and ought to be adopted in the west. Not even Turley argues that this is the result the administration wanted, and another critic of the administration's strategy said American diplomats do not support efforts to establish an international blasphemy standard. One could argue that by participating in the ongoing negotiations, the administration has de facto endorsed a vehicle for the Muslim nations, but that is not the same as supporting their efforts. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."