Stiffling dissent
Earlier this week, I wrote about the hijacking of Let Freedom Ring blog. While we don't know for a fact who did this, we do know that shortly after Gary hammered hard on a very influential member of Congress a few days before the site was hijacked.
Robert Spencer had an enlightening op-ed in the Washington Times yesterday that talks about censorship in the fight against jihad.
"One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic — and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance."
Mr. Spencer has himself been the target of people trying to silence his free speech. A couple of weeks ago a self proclaimed "hate watcher"asked readers of his blog (which I will not link to) to file reports with filtering organizations flagging Jihad Watch as a hate site. Jihad Watch is a site that points out the atrocities performed by the so-called "Religion of Peace". Mr. Spencer's detractor, who claims to be an ordanied minister uses his blog to stifle the speech of those who do not speak in a manner that the minister deems appropriate. It appears that, where the reverend is concerned, any criticism of Islam is "hate speech".
Which gets us to the crux of the current debate on hate crimes legislation. What is hate? Some say that speech that says a certain lifestyle is unBiblical is "hate speech". Some say that calling for the extermination of an entire race of people is hate speech. The dictionary defination is "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such group." Is reporting on the bad actions of a social or ethnic group "hate speech"? Is reporting on the beheadings and homicide bombings hate speech? WHO is going to determine whether the speaker is "bigoted" or not?
I am a firm believer in free speech - even when it is speech that offends me to my core the speaker has the same First Amendment rights that we all do. This legislation, while well meaning, is yet another assualt on the First Amendment by the Democratic controlled Congress.
Robert Spencer had an enlightening op-ed in the Washington Times yesterday that talks about censorship in the fight against jihad.
"One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic — and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance."
Mr. Spencer has himself been the target of people trying to silence his free speech. A couple of weeks ago a self proclaimed "hate watcher"asked readers of his blog (which I will not link to) to file reports with filtering organizations flagging Jihad Watch as a hate site. Jihad Watch is a site that points out the atrocities performed by the so-called "Religion of Peace". Mr. Spencer's detractor, who claims to be an ordanied minister uses his blog to stifle the speech of those who do not speak in a manner that the minister deems appropriate. It appears that, where the reverend is concerned, any criticism of Islam is "hate speech".
Which gets us to the crux of the current debate on hate crimes legislation. What is hate? Some say that speech that says a certain lifestyle is unBiblical is "hate speech". Some say that calling for the extermination of an entire race of people is hate speech. The dictionary defination is "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such group." Is reporting on the bad actions of a social or ethnic group "hate speech"? Is reporting on the beheadings and homicide bombings hate speech? WHO is going to determine whether the speaker is "bigoted" or not?
I am a firm believer in free speech - even when it is speech that offends me to my core the speaker has the same First Amendment rights that we all do. This legislation, while well meaning, is yet another assualt on the First Amendment by the Democratic controlled Congress.
Labels: Thought Police
posted by The Lady Logician at
6:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home