Monday, April 30, 2012

Free speech doesn't need to be refined

The far left loves conservatives. They will bend over backwards to protect them.

Just as long as they're brown and don't come near them, that is.

Danish professor Lars Hedegaard was nearly locked up for two years for saying there is a serious domestic violence problem in the Muslim community, or as the authorities defined it, hate speech.

The case coming this close was a major victory for multiculturalists and cultural relativism. They don't dare pass judgment on the morals of a non-white culture, even if it's ripe with social conservatism. To them, dodging sticky cultural friction is more important than free speech.

This is a serious threat to human rights, but it could never happen here, right? National Review Online insists otherwise.

Four Democratic New York state senators have recently argued for a “more refined First Amendment,” declaring that speech should be “a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.” These legislators justified their proposed speech restrictions in the context of cyberbullying; there is always some hideous incident to use as the rationale for censoring speech.
Ouch! These vague anti-bullying bills require us to trust the government to apply them reasonably and not abuse the newly-minted power. No civil libertarian would ever fall for that.

It doesn't matter if it's cyberbullying or speech codes, attempts to stifle free speech are steps towards tyranny. Tolerating a little bit of that here will lead to the absolute travesty of the Hedegaard case happening again, this time in an American courtroom.

Hat tip to Nate for the link.


  1. Don't worry, the bill is in the mail.

    And specifically:

    Though there are dozens of examples. (more everyday it seems)

  2. I hadn't realized you took up a new position as one of those sidewalk guys who draw caricatures of people.

  3. Michael Hawkins, the man who was nearly the target of a SLAPP suit, seems to have few issues with this incredible concept of censorship with no practical, only theoretical limits.

    Those who hold speech as very nearly inviolate are, however, caricaturists. Very interesting indeed.

  4. I hadn't realized you took up a new position as a pundit for FOX, Nate. Congratulations.

    The caricature has to do with everything other Michael said about the left. He's projecting an image of an entire end of the political spectrum that exists solely in his head.

  5. You would think I would at least get a check.

    I find it hard to believe you don't agree that there is an element of what could reasonably be called "the far left" that fits right into his claim. There is certainly elements of the right that fit into your frequent, more vehement caricatures.

    Is turnabout not fair play? I'll check my memo's.