Kathianne
11-01-2009, 05:39 AM
Remember back in the campaign, when Obama spoke of threats to free speech, (albeit his campaign, like that when running for IL legislature acted contrarily, but moving along...)? Well it's beginning to be recognized that the real threats have arrived:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php
It's the 'hate speech' stuff:
ADVERTISEMENT
OPENING ARGUMENT
Troubling Signals On Free Speech
IN HIS EAGERNESS TO PLEASE INTERNATIONAL OPINION, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TAKEN A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARD CENSORING FREE SPEECH.
Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009
by Stuart Taylor Jr.
It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, "I strongly disagree" with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.
But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I'm not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.
Is it "negative stereotyping" to say that the world's most dangerous terrorists are Islamists, for example? Many would say yes....
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php
It's the 'hate speech' stuff:
ADVERTISEMENT
OPENING ARGUMENT
Troubling Signals On Free Speech
IN HIS EAGERNESS TO PLEASE INTERNATIONAL OPINION, PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS TAKEN A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARD CENSORING FREE SPEECH.
Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009
by Stuart Taylor Jr.
It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, "I strongly disagree" with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.
But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I'm not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.
Is it "negative stereotyping" to say that the world's most dangerous terrorists are Islamists, for example? Many would say yes....