-
Throw the Book at Him
June 13, 2013 | 196 comments
-
Testimonial to a Great American
June 6, 2013 | 39 comments
-
A Close Call at the Newseum
May 30, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Obama’s Imbroglios
May 23, 2013 | 45 comments
-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
The Current Crisis
Conservatives and Liberals, Come Together
Free speech needs you to defend it.
WASHINGTON — Why are conservatives and liberals not united in defending free speech? The estimable Bret Stephens in his Wall Street Journal column this week raises the question and suggests conservatives and liberals give the matter some thought.
What has provoked him is the plight of the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, who has just been denied entrance to the United Kingdom on the grounds that he is an “undesirable person.” What rendered him so is his documentary, “Fitna,” that lifts lines from the Koran and cites them as the sacred justification for acts of Islamic terror. Wilders is also being prosecuted for “hate speech” in Holland on account of “Fitna.” Supposedly his documentary offended the religious sensibilities of Muslims, which is enough to get a work of intellectual expression banned in Europe.
Stephens points out that it has been precisely twenty years since Andres Serrano dunked a crucifix in a glass of urine, photographed the sacrilege, and called it art. The National Endowment for the Arts awarded him $15,000 for his creativity. Frankly, I think he might have as profitably applied for a grant at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, George. In fact, with the Obama Administration now in power I suggest that Serrano give it a try, assuming he has not passed on from some horrible disease.
Stephens also points out that twenty years ago the Ayatollah Khomeini placed a fatwa on the head of the celebrated left-wing author Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses, which, according to the art critic Khomeini, blasphemed Islam. This was one of the rare instances when the Rev. Khomeini and I were in agreement. I too found the book appalling, though I would not issue a fatwa even if I were certified as an official fatwa installer. A fatwa could get a person killed. I settled on giving Rushdie the J. Gordon Coogler Award for the “Worst Book of the Year.” Rushdie, who publicly traduced Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gladly accepted the bodyguards she gave him, though he never showed up for the awards ceremony.
Things have changed in the UK. Now Labour has replaced Thatcher’s Tories, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown denied Wilders entry into the country. For my part, I actually watched “Fitna” in the comfort of New York City a few months back and found more artistic merit in the documentary than in either of the works by Serrano or Rushdie. Moreover, to my surprise Wilders is not a wild man or a rustic but a gentleman. He deserves to have his speech protected, as did Serrano and Rushdie, though in Serrano’s case I do not see why the American taxpayer had to support his afflatus.
No thoughtful conservative I know called for either Serrano or Rushdie to be banned. We objected to paying for Serrano, but denying him the coverage of the First Amendment was against our commitment to freedom of speech. During the Serrano controversy liberals pretty much defended his First Amendment rights and went further insisting that the National Endowment for the Arts was justified and perhaps even enlightened in funding him. So are the liberals defending Wilders today? Are they alarmed by Europe’s suppression of free speech? This is an issue that both conservatives and liberals should agree on.
What is called “hate speech” is, in a free society, as equal to First Amendment protection as disgusting speech or blasphemy; though presumably there are places where hate speech ought not to be tolerated, for instance grammar schools and high schools. There children and young people are not yet full citizens. They are immature and their ideas are not fully developed. Their outburst would be disruptive. Where the students are adults, say at universities, the First Amendment should hold.
Actually I fear liberals will not join Stephens and me in defending Wilders’ rights or even the rights of Rushdie. My explanation for this is not a happy one. In recent years it seems to me American liberals and conservatives do not want to be in agreement. They want to be at war with each other. This is particularly true of liberals. On the First Amendment they find qualifiers to part company from libertarians conservatives. We see it in the liberals’ support of speech codes at universities. There all advocates of free speech allowed communists to teach and to stir up revolution even during the Cold War. Now free expression is policed by speech codes, lest someone offend touchy ethnics or religious people, preferably non-Western religious people. Serrano never was accused of “hate crime.”
Free speech is a tricky issue once we begin to limit it. People can be very subjective about what is protected speech. Consider Wilders. For all his talk of free speech, he calls the Koran a “fascist book.” He equates it with Mein Kampf and would ban it. Wilders is free to call the Koran anything he wants to call it. Yet he cannot ban it, not in the United States; possibly in Europe, but not in the Land of the Free.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/19/conservatives-and-liberals-com
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Peter Willis| 2.19.09 @ 6:47AM
One of the troubles is that "liberal" no longer means "liberal." Once it meant "toleration of differences" and was a respectable and civilized position. "Economic liberalism" meant something like minimal government regulation. Now, at least in the US it means something like "hater of Western civilization and worker for its destruction." (In Australia the conservative party is still called the Liberal Party). Perhaps if we could reclaim the old, respectable meaning of "liberal"it would be a healthy thing for society, and those who chose to call themselves liberals might become aware of its old meaning.
drudge ette obamq| 2.19.09 @ 7:06AM
The FCC, created through the 1934 Communications Act ostensibly to provide order to a chaotic radio system, has no power of censorship but does control free speech by sanctioning obscene, indecent or profane language.
From the horse's mouth, the FCC website sets forth:
What Is the FCC’s Responsibility
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a “clear and present danger of serious substantive evil” come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The FCC cannot suppress such expressions. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, “the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive. However, the Commission does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. (end of FCC quote)
Herbert Hoover, whom I believe was Commerce Secretary prior to becoming president in 1934, thought that government control/censorship of radio would be the same as if the country's press were controlled by the government. Clearly, though, Hoover supported the FCC and the Communications Act of 1934, but his support did not include censorship of the radio spectrum; rather, it was a means to control the then young and wild industry of radio.
Even JFK's FCC chair, Newton Minow, famous for his "vast wasteland" description of television, stated that censorship strikes at the taproot of our free society.
So, why the Fairness Doctrine and why now?
It is so clearly political and it all depends on the makeup of the Supreme Court. Obama and Eric Holder know that any attempt to enforce a fairness doctrine will be challenged in the high court and, given the makeup of that court, it is possible that the court will hold that regulation of the radio airways, as well internet, cable, etc. exclude content. It is political because talk radio, which really is code for conservative talk radio, is highly effective and informative. Smart people listen to talk radio because they learn things and hear discussions, even if they can't contribute due to the mass numbers of listeners. It is not a means of indoctrination, like dull liberal critics say, talk radio is a learning tool.
What Obama's group is waiting for is the opportunity to replace a conservative justice with a Ginsburg/Kennedy-type who adopt the European models described in the feature article. We already see these justices nodding their heads to international law as an example to support decisions. Censorship is part and parcel of the European model, but it is not American.
Can you imagine what this country would be like if all school kids, prisoners, ACORN members, MOVEON.ORGers, NAACP members, Latinos, and single moms listened to Rush Limbaugh every day for one month? I think it would be a gamechanger.
Sons Of Sam | 2.19.09 @ 8:18AM
"In recent years it seems to me American liberals and conservatives do not want to be in agreement. They want to be at war with each other. "
Mr. Tyrell, that one comment alone is EXACTLY why we find ourselves in this mess. Saying that is akin to saying that Hitler and America both "wanted" to be at war. It's NONSENSE: Hitler wanted war, while we only wanted to be left alone. The war was forced upon us by a power mad tyrant, just as the war in this country has been forced on us by power mad liberals who want to ban everything we say and and feel and think. They spit on our history and our heroes, tax us in the name of compassion, censor us in the name of "fairness" and still we have guys like you making excuses for them. In your eagerness to be loved, in your asinine desire to be "even handed", you sound exactly like all those fools who used to talk about the "two super powers" back in the 70s. Remember those idiots? The morons who saw a moral equivalence between America and the Evil empire? You used to be the first person to stand up and tell them to their faces that they were talking out of their behinds.
Please sir, find the old Bob Tyrell. Let him loose, and fight back against the tyrants who want to muzzle our freedoms. Do it while you still have time, before the ObamaNazis come to shut you down and cart you off for "re-education"
S.O.S.
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos/
Anthony| 2.19.09 @ 9:36AM
An excellent follow up to Mr. Hyman's article of yesterday. Your fears are well founded; you will find few, if any, allies from the left on the free speech issue, for the reason you identified, they want to be at war with us. The book "Intellectual Morons" provides us with further insights into these people. They are so blinded by their leftist ideology that they cannot grasp the juxtaposition of their inconsistancies. We see daily how elites in the leftist media have justified attacks on talk radio and the internet, with no concern for the impact of these policies on them. That's because they share the same desires to silence critics, even though it strikes at the heart of their own essense as providers of information. The disconnect is stunning. I believe their mental compartmentalization provides them with an intellectual buffer that it can't happen to them because they are the "good guys". Well, we've seen this old saw played out from time and memorial: When they went after... I did nothing. When they went after... I still did nothing... when the went for us, there was nobody left to defend us. We are on our own with this issue. Face facts, the enemy is them.
Free Speech for all| 2.19.09 @ 10:01AM
Zionist Racism Against Ethiopian Jews in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ben Cramer"
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:36:46 +1000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zionist Racism Against Ethiopian Jews in Israel
By Danna Harman Associated Press Writer Tuesday, March 17, 1998; 2:42 p.m.
EST
top of page
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Ethiopian immigrants in flowing white robes climbed off a
bus to catch a first glimpse of their new home in Israel -- a trailer park
on a windswept hill outside Jerusalem.
Activists of the 60,000-strong Ethiopian community complain of systematic
discrimination by established Israelis and say the government is not moving
fast enough to move immigrants from transit camps to real homes.
....Critics said while Israel is great on ideas -- two dramatic airlifts in
1985 and 1991 saved thousands of Ethiopian Jews from starvation and civil
war -- it is not doing well on helping them get settled.
``It is as if the government feels they have finished their job by just
bringing us here, but clearly the suffering is not over,'' said Adisso
Massala, the sole member of Parliament from the Ethiopian community.
Ethiopian activists say other immigrant groups, especially newcomers from
the former Soviet Union, get better housing, education and work
opportunities.
The anger of the Ethiopian community exploded in riots two years ago when it
was revealed that Israeli blood banks were secretly discarding their
donations, fearing the blood might be tainted with AIDS.
The government says it has granted Ethiopians unprecedented aid. More than
half the Ethiopian families in Israel have bought homes with government
grants of up to $120,000 for families, far more aid than available to other
immigrants.
But Ethiopian youth also have the lowest high school graduation rate of any
group in Israel -- a guarantee of a future as low-paid unskilled laborers.
The government wavered for years over whether to allow thousands of
Falashmura to come to Israel to join their relatives.
Some Israelis fear that more and more people in the developing world will
look at the example of the Ethiopians and try to immigrate to the now
relatively prosperous Jewish state by claiming Jewish roots.
Despite these concerns, the government decided to allow the immigration, and
in recent weeks the pace of arrivals has quickened.
``But we still want more,'' he said. ``We do not want to create a new
Ethiopia here. We came to be like everyone else.''
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prev by Date: The origins of Zionism: From victims to a watchdog state
Next by Date: The Hebron Massacre
Previous by thread: Breaking the Silence
Next by thread: The Hebron Massacre
Index(es):
Date
Thread
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant Pages
Apartheid po zydowsku
... its low number of Ethiopian students; parents requesting Ethiopian ... Ethiopians unveil the true state of racism in Israel ...
(soc.culture.polish)
Re: Do the Indians Look Jewish to You?
... didn't one of the Biblical lost tribes of Israel end up in Ethiopia from whence some members appeared after the creation of the Israeli state to claim their rights of citizenship in it? ... The Anglo-Israelite theory identifies the English people with the lost tribes; it was, in the 17th cent., a factor in helping the Jews to reenter England. ... The committee instead proposes allowing only some of these Ethiopians, known as Falash Mura, to join family members who are already in Israel, on what officials describe as an individual and humanitarian basis. ... But the ministers chose not to take a giant extra step demanded by Ethiopian advocacy groups: to declare all Falash Mura to be forced converts and therefore eligible to settle in Israel under the Law of Return, which gives every Jew the right of immigration. ...
(soc.retirement)
israel infected by racism
... Organizations working for the advancement of rights of Ethiopians in Israel ... The facts seem to show that these attitudes are not confined to specific ... proclaims that "there is a small quantity of Ethiopian children in our ... incidences of racism across Israel. ...
(soc.culture.israel)
Haaretz: Falashmura group vows to close camp if Israel okays aliyah
... the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry ... Israel has not recognized his eligibility to immigrate. ... NACOEJ decides who will enter the camp and receive food, ...
(soc.culture.israel)
Ethiopian Jews struggle to assimilate in Israel -- still treated as non-Jews and outside
... Sudan to take the huddled villagers to Israel. ... This plane was their deliverance, but when it approached, 200 Ethiopian ... Jews fled for their lives into the desert. ...
(uk.politics.misc)
Reagan's Ghost| 2.19.09 @ 11:32AM
*Liberal*[Democrat] = Fascist/socialist/authoritarian
*Free speech* is ONLY for commie sympathizers, black racist preachers, bombers and cop-killers, porno-perverts, NAMBLA, ACLU, PETA, the Sierra Club, NEA, and assorted other haters of American liberty and prosperity.
Any non-baby killing, non-homo-hugging, non-marriage hating, patriot Americans should be muzzled and sent to Gitmo in place of the good, America-hating muslims. sarc/
American Ignorance | 2.19.09 @ 11:52AM
Reagan's Goast.
It sounds like someone is damaging your reputation. Perhaps you should move to Israel, or go back to Germany, and join up with some of those skin heads over there you may feel more comfortable.
There is some information on this on: Youtube American Ignorance fuels troubles in Israel
I thought the economy was collapsing, and lots of people losing their homes and jobs, which prosperity are you talking about, unless you know Bill Gates?
Doctor Right| 2.19.09 @ 12:50PM
Liberals will NOT join Conservatives in support of free speech in the case of Geert Wilders because they are getting ready to squash the right of free speech in the USA with the re-imposition of the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine".
To do otherwise would make those same Liberals look like hypocrites!
Liberal hypocrites??
Really, Mr. Tyrell...What WERE you thinking??
Reagan's Ghost| 2.19.09 @ 1:04PM
Good pseudonym for most of trolls, including you.
American Ignorance| 2.19.09 @ 1:07PM
Bunch of fascist Republican NAMBLA-haters! They all ought to move back to Israel.
bobmontgomery| 2.19.09 @ 1:17PM
If hate speech is protected, how can hate 'thought', or hate 'intent' as codified in "hate crime" laws, be constitutional? If there is a law against striking a person, how can there be a separate charge or additional penalty if the person is different in some way than you? Even if you are a card carrying-member of the "I hate white people" club? Or the "I hate conservatives" club? Or you walk around all day saying "I hate capitalists"? For any crime directed against someone of your own class, does MOTIVE carry an additional penalty? Is there such a thing as an "Envy" crime?
Marc Jeric| 2.19.09 @ 1:34PM
Before I escaped from a communist regime back in 1957, I had the "benefit" of some 12 years of marxist-leninist indoctrination. It's all in the names, they said; People's Democratic Republic - translated as the murderous, gangster-led, terrorist regime consigning everybody but the ruling gang to perpetual poverty. Free speech - you can shout "Hail Stalin, Hail Tito, Hail Ceaucescu, Hail Mao, Hail Castro, etc" - anything else was anti-people and brought you to the Gulag. Political correctnes - that's what it was.
Our own communists had to change their name when the communist mass murders became known. So they named themselves socialists. Then when socialism proved to be generator of poverty they became "liberals" or "progressives".
But their purposes and tactics have stayed the same - intimidation, accusations of racism, politically correct speech codes, calling "hate crime" any expression they do not like. And now they are holding absolute power in this poor country of ours - in state and federal governments, in schools, in unions, in universities, in professional associations, in main stream media, in television, in Hollywood. For mee it is a personal tragedy to see ACORN brownshirts and Salinsky's "community organizers" stealing elections while receiving some $9 billion of "stimulus" from their patron Abu Hussein from Kenya. Any day now I will be accused of "hate crime".
Brian Hogan| 2.19.09 @ 2:04PM
I think you might be a bit off-center in your final paragraph.
Wilders hasn't actually asked for the banning of the Koran. He has pointed out that the Netherlands has laws that ban the publication of hate speech--an example of such being Mein Kampf, which is banned in that country.
Wilders points out that the Koran teaches that unbelievers should be killed if they won't convert, and calls for the killing of jews. That sort of thing is certainly hate speech, under the law in force in Holland. So, asks Wilders, why is it okay to publish the Koran?
If I understand what's going on over there (and I might not), he's demanding that the laws of his country should apply to all, and being muslim should not allow you to evade them. He's also making the point that he dones not believe Islam as it's practiced by such as Bin Laden and his comrades is compatible with European civilization .
Stan redmond| 2.19.09 @ 2:47PM
This is not complicated to understand why the fairness doctrine is promoted by left wingers. It's MONEY!!! Left talkers don't make any money because no one listens to them. Hence, the swift renaming of a new consorship doctrine to some benign sounding "Talk Radio Economic Growth Stimulus Package"
All FCC licensed broadcasters in the (oh I don't know) the 1610 kHz to 1710 kHz range will be required to accept this stimulus money. And in exchange for this involuntary stimulus money radio stations must meet new federal guidelines on "host compensation parity" and "content stability requirements." This will provide valuable services for the children and provide jobs for struggling AM hosts.
I should write laws!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.19.09 @ 3:55PM
I thoroughly enjoy the free speech in your country but would like to point out that Obama's first trip was to a country that does not have free speech, Canada. Back in mother Russia we could shut you down with a baseball bat but your founding fathers were wise and put Freedom of Speech in the Constitution. In Canada there are Human Rights Commissions who go after people who express politically unpopular opinions about certain human conditions. Once they are investigated they are hauled before Human Rights Tribunals. In Russia we didn't need the tribunals, just a hole in the ground.
In case you missed it, you got your first taste of an attack on Freedom of Speech just yesterday with Eric Holders maniacal rant about racism, calling Americans "cowards." It's just the first step to shutting down the opposition to some schemes he and Obama have cooked up to increase the rights of minorities while decreasing the rights of those who are not victims. In the meantime, enjoy what you have before you have to fight to keep it.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-0630-vere-free_speech_in_canada.htm
This is the “hate crime” for which Father is being investigated by Canada’s human rights commissions. Once the complaint is investigated, the commission will likely haul Father before one of Canada’s human rights tribunals. Technically, the tribunals operate at an arm’s length distance from the commissions, which take on a new role as legal prosecution for the complainant. In practicality, no accused has ever beaten the rap when brought before the tribunal by the commission.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/free_speech_in_canada.html
Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, as well as the magazines they respectively wrote for and owned, were the targets of complaints filed with various Human Rights Commissions across Canada, accusing them of publishing material that was offensive to Muslims. The Human Rights Commissions, which were set up to protect the rights of minorities -- including it seems, the right never to be offended by something they read -- are not so zealous when it comes to protecting human rights such as the right to free speech and the right to freedom of conscience. Targets of the HRCs include a man who wrote a letter to the editor arguing the traditional Biblical strictures against homosexuality, and a restaurant owner who objected to a man smoking marijuana in the doorway of his establishment.
koranist| 2.19.09 @ 7:55PM
What does Koran say about Torah and Gospel
http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html
Frosty| 2.19.09 @ 10:51PM
Most likely says to blow them both to bits, what else?
Mike| 2.21.09 @ 8:21AM
I can understand why "speech codes" and "hate speech" laws have appeal to liberals - they're effective silencing critics - but what does the left see in militant Islam? If that's not a force odious and powerful enough to unite liberals and conservatives in common cause, then nothing is.
Nice post Brian Hogan. I think you're spot on. Wilders is a courageous and principled man.
Michele San Pietro| 2.21.09 @ 1:17PM
I doubt the so-called "liberals" have free speech at heart. They are more arrogant and intolerant than ever.
hgjhg| 11.24.09 @ 9:19PM
DVD Copier For Mac,
DVD To DVD Copier Mac