Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and a
documentary film producer; not exactly the person one would
expect to find on the front line in the battle against both
radical Islam and the Islamist assault on free speech. Yet, that
is where the 45 year-old founder of the Party for Freedom stands.
Wilders, by posting the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad on
his website and producing a short film titled Fitna, has
stirred international controversy that has prompted boycotts of
Dutch products, condemnation by the UN Secretary General,
constant death threats, and civil and criminal prosecution.
Americans, especially politicians on the Left, should take
notice.
Fitna features graphic images of terrorist attacks and
quotes radical Imams and Koranic Suras used to justify terrorism.
In response to the film, Wilders’ own government, at the behest
of an angry Muslim population, investigated whether he violated
any “hate speech” laws but ultimately declined to prosecute him.
However, the Jordanian government is prosecuting Wilders, along
with 12 other Europeans, for blasphemy against Islam and
requesting that Wilders be extradited to Jordan to stand trial.
If convicted in Jordan, Wilders could be sentenced to death.
Of course, the experience of Geert Wilders and those like him,
says much about radical Islam and the threats it poses to free
societies. However, it says something, perhaps nearly as
frightening, about what Western societies are doing to
themselves. Natan Sharansky, who spent years in the Soviet gulags
and knows something about freedom, defined a free society in
The Case for Democracy as one in which “people have a
right to express their views without fear of arrest,
imprisonment, or physical harm.” By that definition, democracies
all across the world are in jeopardy.
In much of Western Europe, where multiculturalism seems to be the
official language, “hate speech” laws suppress candid discourse.
Liability potentially awaits anyone whose views offend others.
The Council of Europe’s website even states that “In
multicultural societies it is often necessary to reconcile
freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and
religion. In some instances, it may also be necessary to place
restrictions on these freedoms.”
People who are offended by what a critic or commentator writes
about them have started suing in countries with restrictive
speech laws, in a means of forum shopping known as “libel
tourism.” Deterred from pursuing libel cases in countries like
the United States where legal standards are higher and free
speech protections greater, these plaintiffs force authors to
incur the expense of mounting a legal response or risk defaulting
in a foreign jurisdiction.
There are also disturbing signs that free speech in America will
become less protected and more regulated in the near future,
especially with the reality of large Democratic majorities in
Congress and a Barack Obama presidency looming. The most
publicized example is reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine, which
requires broadcasters to devote equal time to both sides
of controversial issues. Paternalism aside, the Doctrine would
cause an explosion of regulation and litigation and would
effectively be used to destroy conservative talk radio and
possibly FOX News. Members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have
also suggested imposing “neutrality” requirements on the
Internet, which could lead to content regulation of websites,
including blogs.
The left no longer seems bashful about regulating free speech for
political gain, and when I asked Wilders whether the prospect of
a Democratic government could have profound implications for free
speech rights in America, he coyly stated, “I know who I would
vote for and it wouldn’t start with an ‘O.’” In fact, Barack
Obama’s campaign, which raised and spent more money than any
presidential campaign in history, has wielded the threats of
libel suits and government investigations as a sword to quiet
critics.
As the late Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, hardly a
conservative, once said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” The
way best to ensure such sunlight is to protect free speech, even
the hateful, offensive kind, because ultimately, the free
marketplace of ideas is the best regulator of all.
When Geert Wilders recently spoke at a lunch in New York hosted
by the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum, an organization
dedicated to protecting free speech rights, he said that “America
is the last man standing.” It was not quite clear whether he was
referring to our willingness to combat radical Islam or to guard
against the encroachment of free speech rights. It turns out that
true freedom requires commitment to both.
