Freedom of Speech: under attack
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has two fine articles on freedom of speech. The first article begins:
-
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) released a report on Denmark that—astoundingly—suggests that support for free speech in that country is proof of Danish of “intoleranceâ€.
Allah excerpts this portion of the report concerning Danish Muslims, from the section headed “vulnerable groupsâ€:
In September 2005, with the stated intention of verifying whether freedom of speech is respected in Denmark, a widely-read Danish newspaper called on cartoonists to send in caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad; such drawings are considered to be offensive by many Muslims. This newspaper thus published 12 such cartoons, one of which portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist. The issue has caused widespread condemnation and a protest march was organised in Copenhagen as a result. The fact that, according to a survey carried out regarding the publication of these drawings, 56% of the respondents felt that it was acceptable is a testimony of the current climate in Denmark. ECRI considers that the goal of opening a democratic debate on freedom of speech should be met without resorting to provocative acts that can only predictably elicit an emotional reaction.
Catch that little bit of progressive pretzel logic? Because it bears repeating: “ECRI considers that the goal of opening a democratic debate on freedom of speech should be met without resorting to provocative acts that can only predictably elicit an emotional reaction. Or, to put that in terms that are more direct, ECRI believes free speech is all fine and good, provided it is not so free that it upsets anyone’s sensibilities.
Which is to say, the ECRI is all for free speech, so long as it is constrained by a demand that the “free speech†in question be universally-agreed upon (or at least, universally non-upsetting to particular groups—which is the force behind phrases that demonize speech, such as worries about speech that will “predictably elicit an emotional reactionâ€; after all, true tolerance is about countenancing that emotional reaction, not about avoiding the elicitation of such a response).
But it is the second article which I find more worrisome. The ECRI is far across the pond, and the democratic Europeans are more probable to be swept under a wave of Islamic immigrants and institute Shari’a before they can export their whacko legislation here — assuming, of course, that Justice Anthony Kennedy doesn’t decide to cite the ECRI and European law in the next Supreme Court case involving free speech. The second article details The Slippery Slope of Hate Speech, in which the city of Boulder, Colorado, is considering setting up a government-funded hotline where people who are offended by what someone else says can report such offensive speech!
I’m sorry, but when the First Amendment to the Constitution, which you will note is proudly displayed at the top of this website, says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . . ” I believe it means just that: no law! The Fourteenth Amendment “incorporated” the Bill of Rights into restrictions on state action as well, and I don’t care if Boulder wants to criminalize the use of the word nigger, they can’t do it.
Indeed, I find the entire concept of a “hate crime” offensive. There is no need for such: if someone commits a crime, punish the crime; if a man is killed because his murderer didn’t like his race, he is no deader than if he were killed just so the murderer could steal his wallet.
Back during the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor George W Bush was asked why Texas did not prosecute the murderers of James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death, apparently for drunken amusement, by three white men in a pickup truck. That, surely, was a hate crime!
Governor Bush pointed out that two of the murderers were sentenced to death, and the third to life in prison without the possibility of parole; what more could the state do to them? Texas did the right thing: it punished the act, and not the thought behind the act.
And I find it interesting that our friends on the left, the ones who are so adamant about freedom of speech and their civil rights when it comes to criticizing the president or the government or our policies, seem so willing to use the power of government to punish speech that they don’t like. Mr. Goldstein reported that the American Civil Liberties Union, a group which ought to be the most up in arms about the Boulder proposal, has problems with it because it doesn’t insure the confidentiality of people reporting offensive speech, but, at least so far, has no problem with the idea that some people’s speech could be reported to the government for some sort of action!
Arthur Downs:
The very concept of punishing ‘thought crime’ should be repugnant to anyone with a love for Liberty.
Yet we have regular demands for censorhip from all points of the political spectrum. The political left pushes ‘political correctness’ to allegedly protect the hyper-sensitive from ‘hurtful’ words and phrases. We had a warning about this collectivist urge in the ‘Newspeak’ that Orwell described in ‘1984′.
So-called ’social conservatives’ get their blood pressure up over ‘Southpark’ and ‘Beavis and Butthead’ to demonstrate that too much bible-thumping destroys the ability to recognize satire. J- Swift had similar problems when ‘A Modest Proposal’ was denounced as advocating cannibalistic infanticide.
We now have folks worried about a movie based on a rather silly film. There are some dullards who think that every motion picture is a documentary. I found a lot of truth in Ghostbusters, Blazing Saddles, History of the World Part I, and Life of Brian but will not waste my money (seeing) or time (protesting) the daVnci Code. Better to re-read Umberto Eco’s ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’ as a put-down of conspiracy theories.
The European Community seems to have suffered from a guilt complex over past misdeeds. The response is wallowing in a new form of misbehavior.
Is Ellsworth Toohey in charge of the lunatics running the asylum?
20 May 2006, 8:03 am