“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.
It’s a chore to watch more than 60 seconds of this hypocrite unveil the carefully qualified Truth he never uttered while campaigning (and will forget if ever his faction is in power again). During his presidential campaign, Fred Thompson, and the rest of the Republican front runners, praised Bush’s three-trillion-dollar war.
Thompson and his ilk had no qualms about W’s warfare-welfare wantonness: his compassionate conservatism they touted endlessly, including Bush’s “ownership society” which amplified the mortgage meltdown. Where was cuddly Fred when,
To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.
Those who still choose to cheer for the GOP (RIP), and saddle Obama with its travesties, might wish to commit to memory (if only fleetingly) the fact that in order to privilege Hispanics (mostly illegal), Bush not only pushed for their amnesty, but worked overtime to incorporate them into the “ownership society.” Easy credit for minorities unworthy of credit was par for the course during the Bush years.
While campaigning, did fuzzy Freddy denounce, or even mention, Bush’s prescription-drug benefit that has added trillions to the Medicare shortfall? The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime)? The collusion with Kennedy on education?
What is it about establishment Republicans that they will cover up for each other and for the crimes of their Leader for 8 solid years, and are still begged to come back for encores by their followers, none of whom is the wiser? (That’s a rhetorical question).
Why do the party parrots have no curiosity about the one man who has been correct for 30 straight years? Or about the few columns that have been predictive and always spoken truth to power? (Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. This snake-oil merchant–and failed philosopher kings like him–are still touted as the crème de la crème of the American commentariat.)
Mencken explained this with reference to the genus called “Boobus Americanus,” but then today, in the Age of the Idiot, Mencken himself would be voiceless, unemployed.
Update III (Jan 25): Still fawning over Fred and the Republican phonies? In case you find it hard to believe Bush helped build the ownership society on quicksand, do read about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. Did know-it-all Fred protest that when he had a chance to? Not on his life. He ought to leave “Economics in One Lesson” to the great Henry Hazlitt, who, like Mencken, would be unemployed or underemployed in the Age of the Idiot.
Update IV (Jan. 26): About the convergence of the Demopublican duopoly, Vox Day, my WND colleague, writes:
“[W]hen in power, the differences between the two parties are mostly illusory. Republican and Democrat are simply two different factions of the same ruling party, and their congressional battles are primarily over political spoils, not political ideology. This is why a ‘conservative’ president will immediately tack left upon taking office, while a ‘liberal’ president will tend to move to the right. We’ve seen this with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, so there’s no reason to expect a massive difference between the previous administration and the current one.”
As I have written, “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”
I do, however, hope Vox tackles the mindlessness of the parties’ respective followers.
Update V: To Myron. I thought the point I was making was obvious–or has responsibility (as opposed expediency) become such a vague term? The point is not whether Fuzzy Fred was present in the flesh when Bush did what he did; but this: The onus was on FF to articulate the principles he has only now discovered while vying for the Party’s nomination for president. It was THEN that FF ought to have disavowed the violation of these principles by Bush. But Fred denounces spending and cheap credit only now that a Democrat has taken over where Bush left off. It goes without saying that had the Republicans not been dethroned, they’d be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing–stimulating their packages–and their followers would be doing the same. (With one hand held out for their share of the loot.)
It’s a chore to watch more than 60 seconds of this hypocrite unveil the carefully qualified Truth he never uttered while campaigning (and will forget if ever his faction is in power again). During his presidential campaign, Fred Thompson, and the rest of the Republican front runners, praised Bush’s three-trillion-dollar war.
Thompson and his ilk had no qualms about W’s warfare-welfare wantonness: his compassionate conservatism they touted endlessly, including Bush’s “ownership society” which amplified the mortgage meltdown. Where was cuddly Fred when,
To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.
Those who still choose to cheer for the GOP (RIP), and saddle Obama with its travesties, might wish to commit to memory (if only fleetingly) the fact that in order to privilege Hispanics (mostly illegal), Bush not only pushed for their amnesty, but worked overtime to incorporate them into the “ownership society.” Easy credit for minorities unworthy of credit was par for the course during the Bush years.
While campaigning, did fuzzy Freddy denounce, or even mention, Bush’s prescription-drug benefit that has added trillions to the Medicare shortfall? The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime)? The collusion with Kennedy on education?
What is it about establishment Republicans that they will cover up for each other and for the crimes of their Leader for 8 solid years, and are still begged to come back for encores by their followers, none of whom is the wiser? (That’s a rhetorical question).
Why do the party parrots have no curiosity about the one man who has been correct for 30 straight years? Or about the few columns that have been predictive and always spoken truth to power? (Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. This snake-oil merchant–and failed philosopher kings like him–are still touted as the crème de la crème of the American commentariat.)
Mencken explained this with reference to the genus called “Boobus Americanus,” but then today, in the Age of the Idiot, Mencken himself would be voiceless, unemployed.
Update III (Jan 25): Still fawning over Fred and the Republican phonies? In case you find it hard to believe Bush helped build the ownership society on quicksand, do read about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. Did know-it-all Fred protest that when he had a chance to? Not on his life. He ought to leave “Economics in One Lesson” to the great Henry Hazlitt, who, like Mencken, would be unemployed or underemployed in the Age of the Idiot.
Update IV (Jan. 26): About the convergence of the Demopublican duopoly, Vox Day, my WND colleague, writes:
“[W]hen in power, the differences between the two parties are mostly illusory. Republican and Democrat are simply two different factions of the same ruling party, and their congressional battles are primarily over political spoils, not political ideology. This is why a ‘conservative’ president will immediately tack left upon taking office, while a ‘liberal’ president will tend to move to the right. We’ve seen this with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, so there’s no reason to expect a massive difference between the previous administration and the current one.”
As I have written, “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”
I do, however, hope Vox tackles the mindlessness of the parties’ respective followers.
Update V: To Myron. I thought the point I was making was obvious–or has responsibility (as opposed expediency) become such a vague term? The point is not whether Fuzzy Fred was present in the flesh when Bush did what he did; but this: The onus was on FF to articulate the principles he has only now discovered while vying for the Party’s nomination for president. It was THEN that FF ought to have disavowed the violation of these principles by Bush. But Fred denounces spending and cheap credit only now that a Democrat has taken over where Bush left off. It goes without saying that had the Republicans not been dethroned, they’d be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing–stimulating their packages–and their followers would be doing the same. (With one hand held out for their share of the loot.)
“Allow me to put forth a simple proposition. The election of Obama is no racial milestone; it’s not that whites have come to their senses. But rather that African-Americans have finally done what’s right (to paraphrase the childish, churlish prose of one Rev. Lowery).
For the first time in a long time, the black community has put forward a candidate of caliber, a candidate the American people were only too willing to consider for the highest office in the land.
Until Barack, the black community had disgorged the likes of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Be they black, brown, yellow or red (Rev. Lowery’s classification) – no sane American would elect those two phonies to serve on their local PTA board, much less in the Oval Office.” …
