Free speech death
watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved
the resolution, cosponsored by the
It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any
advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative
stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an
oblique reference to accurate
reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- which is always
the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other
groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say
anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue
detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people
like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's
"negative stereotyping."
And the worst aspect of this and all such measures is that the
"Incitement" and the "hatred" are in the eye of the
beholder. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their
views as hate speech. The Founding Fathers tried to protect Americans from
tyranny by protecting free speech. Now our free speech is threatened, and
tyranny will take advantage of that. But we still have the First Amendment,
right? Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it
isn't that easy to dismiss this:
6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we're protected by the First Amendment?
First, if the
So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably
have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed "hate speech"
that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be
committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to
allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who
would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional
amendments that would work such changes).