printWrites the Brussels Journal:
“The Dutch judicial authorities are going to prosecute Geert Wilders, one of the 150 members of the Dutch Parliament, for making the movie Fitna. In this short documentary, which explains what happens if a number of verses of the Koran are taken seriously, Mr Wilders compares the Muslims’ holy book to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. He claims the Koran calls for violence against Jews and other non-Muslims. Fitna can be seen here.”
Hate speech laws are inimical to a free society. All speech, truthful and untruthful, ought to be free in a free society. The verbiage of liars and holocaust deniers too.
American jurisprudence allows the regulation of speech only under very limited circumstances. If speech poses a “Clear and Present Danger,” it can be censored. While the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t protect words that are likely to cause violence, the required threshold is extremely high. As it should be.
In this context, my preferred course of action against imams, for example, who publicly preach and incite violence against Americans on American soil is deportation, not censorship. The Netherlands ought to make sure that their courageous son, Wilders, is free to live in his homeland without fear. Instead, the Dutch state has joined the enemies of civilization in terrorizing a true hero.
Too few libertarians have been vocal about this defining issue of our time.
In case you think we in the US are protected by the Constitution, think again. Obama, as I pointed out in “Uncivil Agenda,” intends to expand hate crimes statutes and prosecutions.
Update (Jan. 26): Myron: why must “the man,” Wilders, be tried at all, by jurors or by a justice? He is innocent in the natural law; what he has done–speak his mind–is naturally licit.
Thanks for bringing Geert Wilders’ case to everyone’s attention. It needs to be widely known.
As you know the “Clear and Present Danger” decision was a rubber stamp for tyrannical censorship and used to imprison draft protesters during WWI.
Woodrow Wilson was a proto-fascist.
[Sure.]
Is the man not even entitled to a jury trial (as opposed to some idiotic “judge”)? It looks like Wilders and others may have to go to non-violent civil disobedience (if Moslems can set cars on fire in France with impugnity, what about just sitting down in front of Parliament if a politcal party gets thrown out by a judge?). This is an upside down world heading towards its own destruction.
I’m in full agreement about the necessity to defend free speech, including that of “liars and holocaust deniers too,” as Ilana states. I suspect that most Americans haven’t yet comprehended how critical this issue is.
Take this statement, for example: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 is rather exclusionary, not at all the type of spiritual message that might define a “pluralistic” society. How long before a passage like this one will be officially deemed “offensive” to those holding different views, or marked as “hate speech” and declared illegal?
[Or scripture positing that sodomy is wrong.]
Ms. Mercer: Just seeking a word of clarification as a result of complaints we have received from offended Muslim citizens: Are you in ANY way suggesting that radical Islam might in some way be a threat to our country? Please clarify in a subsequent post to your blog. We wouldn’t want to have to report you to our Shari’a-Law prosecutors. (We will be watching you.) — signed :-), Your Friendly Local Dhimmi Federal Free Speech Monitor
/sarc