The New York Times vs. Free Speech

From the desk of Napoleon Linardatos on Thu, 2008-06-12 23:14

The New York Times (NYT) is in the business of changing the American culture, especially what it perceives as really bad American habits. One of them is free speech.

In an article (Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech) the NYT tried to address the issue of the different approach that American judicial system takes on the important issue of free speech. The article is a marvelous study in the architecture of deceit. What is omitted and what is included create a much distorted picture of the issue at hand. It all starts in the first paragraph:

“A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.”

What is excluded from this paragraph, and the rest of the article, is any mention to what was “mocking and biting” in the Maclean’s article. It’s a very useful omission.

And it’s all more useful since the article proceeds to talk about racial epithets, Nazi regalia, the American Nazi Party marching in Skokie, Ill., Ku Klux Klan and other hateful stuff.

The reader is to infer that the content of the Maclean’s article came pretty close to all of the above anathemas. But if the NYT were to mention parts of the actual content of the Maclean’s article it would make the American case for free speech. Namely, that the effort to control or ban hateful speech ends up suppressing all speech no matter how well reasoned and defended.

Regulation and control of political speech by the state leads to its control by the governing elites and that’s what the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution tries to avoid. And this is precisely what the Maclean’s case proves.

Here is another paragraph from the NYT piece:

“But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.”

Someone should inform Mr. Lewis where the people who commit “acts of mass murder and terrorism” come from. Hint: countries with quite different traditions of free speech than the United States.

And here is another one:

“Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists, which have intervened in the case in support of the magazine, was measured in his criticism of the law forbidding hate speech.

‘Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.’”

We do know that the Canadian Association of Journalists does not subscribe to any sort “of marketplace of ideas.” We can see that in the writing. The uniform and compliant subscription to the command and control milieu of left-wing clichés proves as much.

This from Jihad Watch on Free Speech in U.S.

Submitted by FLLegal on Mon, 2008-06-16 17:44.

This from Jihad Watch, a great site, that I wanted to post here for educational purposes pursuant to the Fair Use doctrine.

88% Say Free Speech is Good, But Only 53% Oppose Ban on Hate Speech

Bad news from a Rasmussen telephone survey: this is why CAIR and co. are so unrelenting in characterizing all discussion of the Islamic jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism as "hate speech." It could easily become illegal to discuss these things in the United States -- and then the jihad would continue unimpeded.

From Rasmussen Reports, June 16 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

The overwhelming majority of Americans strongly guard their right to free speech (88%). But, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just over half (53%) say the United States should refrain from banning so-called “hate speech.”

Twenty-eight percent (28%) think it is a good idea to ban hate speech, which is loosely defined as comments intended to put down or incite violence against people on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other legally protected categories. Nearly one in five voters (19%) are undecided on whether such a ban is necessary.

Women are less opposed to banning hate speech than men. African-American voters are evenly divided while White voters oppose such a ban by a 57% to 24% margin. Many African-American leaders argue for protection from racist hate crimes.

Support for a ban on hate speech declines when voters are reminded that government would define what constitutes “hate speech.” Seventy-four percent (74%) say it is better to allow free speech without government interference than to let the government decide what types of hate speech should be banned. Only 11% disagree and would give government the power to decide what speech should be banned. These answers parallel findings in other recent Rasmussen Reports surveys showing that voters overwhelmingly view the government as a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests....

 

Posted by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch

Freedom of speech

Submitted by Ron Kenan on Sun, 2008-06-15 23:01.

We have already lost our freedom of speech. If you don't believe me look at the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law. The supreme court admitted as such when they ruled the law was constitutional.

Do we really have Free Speech?

Submitted by FLLegal on Mon, 2008-06-16 01:41.

Is "free speech" truly Free when there is a "chill" on Free speech?

Is "free speech" truly Free when one is intimidated, whether by actual or perceived threat, to speak???

In my lifetime, I have felt our First Amendment Free speech rights and freedom of Religion rights to be slowing eroding away. Furthermore, I sense said erosion to be occuring evermore so rapidly.

@ Arius

Submitted by Frank Lee on Sat, 2008-06-14 21:14.

It's true that the Democrats in the United States have a young, good-looking, and likeable candidate for president and will probably win the White House and commanding majorities in both houses of Congress.  But they have no clear policy agenda and, therefore, no clear mandate for anything.  If they abuse their power (a near certainty), they will almost as certainly lose big in 2010, as they did in 1994.  In any case, it is hard to see how they could pack the courts quickly enough to allow for a dismantling of the 1st amendment before a backlash sets in.  An effective assault on freedom of speech in America would require the cooperation of both major parties.  That's possible, but not likely.  (Knock wood.)

Free Speech in the US

Submitted by Arius on Sat, 2008-06-14 20:43.

Don't be so sure that we will always have free speech in the US. If the Democrats get control of the government they plan on dealing with talk radio so that there won't be a repeat of what happened to Clinton in the 1990's, and they have other plans to silence the opposition. This time it is different than the early 1990's. The Left is now whipped up into a psychotic frenzy of hatred of Bush and the 'right wing'. The Left is inflated by a religious mission to purge the nation of evil.

@Arius

Submitted by onecent on Sun, 2008-06-15 04:47.

Americans have a habit of getting bored and tired of the prevailing party and making stupid election choices, thank God not too often, think Carter. We also have a habit of correcting it quickly, think Carter.

An assault on the 1st Amendment like what's happening in Canada would be real tough to pull off here. The self censorship of the media elite hasn't gone unnoticed. They are being taken down financially for it too.

I despise the Left and the idiots that have overtaken the Democrat party. They are dangerous, stupid and dangerous, but, we've been down that road before and rejected it. Fascism doesn't come as naturally to us as Europeans. Big dumb utopian ideas and a smarmy ruling elite aren't an American thing.

I could be very wrong, but, my feeling is that our grand democracy will survive the Islamist fascists and the Socialist fascists.

@Steiner

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-06-13 03:55.

Closer to the truth is Saudi money supporting the Islamist hate vendors at mosques across Europe and North America.

 

As expected of the Religion of Perpetual Indignation

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-06-13 03:44.

I encourage Europeans who are concerned about the Islamists with the help of their socialist lackeys assaults on Canadian free speech to visit this site: ezralevant.com. Ezra Levant is presently being tried before a Kangaroo Court for publishing the Danish Cartoons. It's all so familiar as this has been playing out in Europe for far too long as well.

 

How much longer are we going to put up with a primitive and inherently violent ideology, religion or not, undermining the very fabric of our secular democracies?  I'd love to see these clowns attempt an assault on our First Amendment here, but, they know better.

 

I think that things have backfired on these little fascists in Canada. The press isn't on their side nor is public opinion. 

It can happen here if we are not vigilant...

Submitted by FLLegal on Fri, 2008-06-13 04:20.

Dear onecent:

You stated, "I'd love to see these clowns attempt an assault on our First Amendment here, but, they know better."

It can happen here if we are not vigilant...

Muslims and C.A.I.R. are already assaulting the First Amendment with attempts at getting hate crime laws passed using false claims of hate crimes taking place, along with even trying to get Obama to condemn "Islamophobia" (which I note is an idiotic term for the fear concerning Islam is rational). The left is also doing their bidding and going after Free Speech.

See this related article entitled, "New York Times isn't sure that free speech is such a good idea" by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch found at: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021367.php#comments

An excerpt:

“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Mr. Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

At least for now. But it can happen here. We could lose the freedom to speak out against Islamic supremacism and jihad, and that will only enable the Islamic supremacists to advance farther into the heart of the West.

I have never done this before, but I ask whoever reads this and agrees with it to send it far and wide, along with this post. Free speech is in imminent danger, and in a way that will leave us defenseless against the jihadists. The Canada case against Steyn is just one of many indications. The UN's "Deep" Doudou Diène is working on restricting free speech, and American Muslims are helping him. Pakistan just asked the EU to restrict freedom of expression so as to curb "offenses to Islam." Finland just gave a blogger 2 1/2 years in prison for "insulting Islam."

Yet this worldwide effort is not on most radar screens -- it's being ignored even by conservative bloggers who are generally aware of the jihad threat, as well as by those who think it's all about Al-Qaeda and that Islam is otherwise a religion of peace. That's why I'm asking you to send these two articles around, even to them -- whatever they think of me and my work, they ought to be able to see the need to defend free speech.

If we don't wake people up, it could be too late before anyone even realizes. Call me alarmist, call me hysterical, but it only took six months for Adolf Hitler to dismantle the Weimar Republic and impose a dictatorship. Huey Long is said to have remarked, "Fascism will come to America, but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism." Now we are seeing just that: the anti-jihadists are called fascists, and are being silenced in fascist fashion, in the name of anti-fascism. It's time to wake up. Please, try to wake someone up today."

-End of excerpt.

I pray that the very Constitution that protects us all is not the very document, the fascist Islamists and stealth Jihadists hide behind and use so cunningly, is not an instrument used to destroy in the end our very freedoms created by said document and the very document itself. I love and cherish our Constitution, but I pray it does not become a "suicide pact". Said First amendment was written specifically to protect "hate speech". There is no need to even have a First amendment if it does not protect "hate speech" for why have a First amendment if it only protects the speech that everyone likes?

Throughout the West there is a "chill on Free Speech" and this ought not to be. Free men ought to be able to speak freely, even that which others abhor, without threat and/or intimidation. Free speech is an inalienable right; therefore, no government can rightly take said right from us as Free men.

We are very lucky....

Submitted by onecent on Fri, 2008-06-13 15:07.

........compared to Europe and Canada where free speech isn't as well defined and codified in a constitution. It's no coincidence that the Islamists are trying to take advantage of this outside of the US.

They also need the collaboration of like-minded lefty fascists to assist them. The Democrats in the US aren't that depraved. And, don't forget we are also gun owners if we ever had a government that tried to take our constitutional rights away.

Without free speech there can be no democracy.

The Islamist weasels in Canada are being pushed back. Canadians have been inattentive until now, but, this transparent attempt to eradicate their English Common Law heritage has caught their attention.

It's gratifying that the Irish said No to the fascists in Brussels, the Brits will probably follow when they have their chance. There is something about English speaking people that we have a common culture that enshrines free speech as a basic condition, maybe because our language is less nuanced, I don't know.

Islam, the political ideology, that and the religion are the same, is incompatible with secular free speech loving democracies.

proxys of oil money, as are other terrorists...

Submitted by Steiner on Fri, 2008-06-13 00:46.

But of course, the New York times, being an oil proxy of the Saudis, as are some universities in the U.S. and overseas that are being flooded with oil money, will publish articles to stifle free speech so that the truth can be prevented from reaching the ears of the American people.

This is the new media...snugly in the pockets of the enemies of freedom as it advances their cause in enslaving free societies. These are the more dangerous terrorists who are devoted in shrouding both the mind and spirit of freedom with their ominous lies.