The Global War On Free Speech

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: It’s not just China and Russia: editors in Greece and Hungary are being harassed, while Britain’s straitened press is in danger of being cowed by powerful interests and excessive regulation

Look back at the big events of the past decade and ask yourself: did we find out too much or too little of what the powerful did in our name? Did we know too much or too little about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did we enquire too much or too little about the cheating of the bankers?

When I posed this question during my testimony to the Leveson Inquiry back in January, I swear I saw the judge’s eyes roll. I fear Lord Justice Leveson had been persuaded long before that journalism was a problem for society, not part of the solution to its ills. He could have been forgiven for coming to this instant conclusion, having listened to the heart-rending testimony of Milly Dowler’s parents, or Kate and Gerry McCann, or of other victims of hounding and despicable behaviour.

Even though I have worked in the profession, or trade, for more than two decades, I hold no candle for the press as an institution. My concern is broader. Freedom of expression – the bedrock of democracy – is under threat in Britain, as it is around the globe.

Wherever you look, someone with power, somewhere in the world, is trying to prevent the truth from getting out. In dictatorships they often resort to violence. But usually those with power hide behind laws that, while technically legitimate, are designed to chill free speech.

We think such measures are the preserve of places like China and Russia. And they are. In China the media are severely censored. Dissidents are routinely jailed. Western media are blocked online when they become inconvenient, as the New York Times was recently after revealing details of premier Wen Jiabao’s family wealth. » | John Kampfner | Thursday, November 01, 2012

West's Free Speech Stand Bars Blasphemy Ban: OIC
REUTERS.COM: (Reuters) - Western opposition has made it impossible for Muslim states to obtain a ban on blasphemy, including anti-Islamic videos and cartoons that have touched off deadly riots, the Islamic world's top diplomat said.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said his 57-nation body would not try again for United Nations support to ban insults to religion, but appealed for states to apply hate-speech laws concerning Islam.

"We could not convince them," said the Turkish head of the 57-member organisation which had tried from 1998 until 2011 to get a United Nations-backed ban on blasphemy.

"The European countries don't vote with us, the United States doesn't vote with us."

Western countries see the publication of such images and materials as a matter of free speech. » | Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor | ISTANBUL | Monday, October 15, 2012

Free Speech Must Remain Free, Despite Tyrants
THE REGISTER-GUARD: Is the right to freely speak one’s mind absolute, or are there words that demand to be removed from polite society? And if some words are beyond the pale, who decides what is OK and what is banned? Would you support restrictions on your right to speak freely?

These questions are quickly becoming relevant to the future of free speech here in Eugene and across America — and it all stems from a bad Internet movie about the prophet Muhammad.

I asked my fellow students at Lane Community College how they felt about the movie and their position on free speech, and virtually without exception they had no opinion. There was no group-think, but there was also no awareness of the potential problem, either.

I was heartened when, after explaining the situation, some fellow students agreed that free speech should not be abridged. This belief does not apply in many countries today, nor is it part of the “tolerance” espoused here in Eugene.

I know what it is like to be attacked and shouted down when trying to speak. I was censored by LCC because of pressure from the Council on American–Islamic Relations regarding a noncredit class I was to teach on Islam. I was censored as a lecturer during the days of Pacifica Forum, when I dared to speak controversially about the Holocaust and Islam. I had a table at the federal building on Saturday mornings during the summer but was shouted down as well as having a complaint registered against me to the Eugene Human Rights Commission.

I cannot speak about Islam, yet local Judaeophobes can demean Israel and call for its deconstruction with no complaints. Why? My First Amendment rights were curtailed because someone did not like my words. Degrading speech about Israel and Jews is OK because Jews will not kill to avenge a slight. Degrading speech about Islam or Muslims is not allowed, because they kill out of anger and revenge. Anyone see the double standard here? Read on and comment » | Barry Sommer | Guest Viewpoint | Monday, October 01, 2012

Arizona Legislature Passes Sweeping Electronic Speech Censorship Bill
CBLDF: Yesterday [Thursday, March 29, 2012], the Arizona legislature passed Arizona House Bill 2549, which would update the state’s telephone harassment law to apply to the Internet and other electronic communications. The bill is sweepingly broad, and would make it a crime to communicate via electronic means speech that is intended to “annoy,” “offend,” “harass” or “terrify,” as well as certain sexual speech. Because the bill is not limited to one-to-one communications, H.B. 2549 would apply to the Internet as a whole, thus criminalizing all manner of writing, cartoons, and other protected material the state finds offensive or annoying. The Bill is currently on Governor Jan Brewer’s desk awaiting her decision on whether to veto or sign the bill. » | Charles Brownstein | Friday, March 30, 2012

HT: Always On Watch »

Anti-abortion Fanatics Are Threatening Free Speech, Warns Academic
THE GUARDIAN: Death threats to philosophers writing on 'after-birth abortion' curb academic discussion, says Journal of Medical Ethics editor

Two academics who wrote a paper suggesting that it should logically be permissible to kill babies at birth who would have fitted the criteria for abortion during pregnancy have been subjected to death threats, according to the journal editor.

Julian Savulescu, editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, published by the British Medical Journal group, said the online intimidation of two philosophers endangered free speech.

The pair – Alberto Giubilini from the University of Milan and Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva from the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, argued in the journal that, as "potential persons", newborn babies, like foetuses, do not have the same moral status as "actual persons".

What they preferred to call "after-birth abortion" rather than infanticide should be allowed not only for babies with abnormalities, such as Down's syndrome, which had not been detected during the pregnancy, but also newborns whose parents would have been granted an abortion because they felt they could not psychologically or materially cope with a child.

The newborn baby is a non-person, argue the ethicists, because they have no sense of their own existence. At a few days old, they say, newborns are "potential persons" but not actual persons, in the same way that a foetus is a potential person. So the interests of their parents over-ride theirs. » | Sarah Boseley, Health editor | Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Day of Rage in Saudi Arabia: How Much Change Can the Gulf Expect?
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: Regime change may not come swiftly to Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, where protesters have called for a 'Day of Rage' today, but a revolution of a different sort is taking place.

Cairo; and Muscat, Oman – From Saudi Arabia’s “Day of Rage” today to an explosion of free speech in Oman, Arab unrest is making ever-larger waves in the oil-rich Gulf region.

Most of the protesters in these Gulf nations are seeking reform, not the overthrow of the royal ruling families. But citizens’ willingness to express their discontent – even after their leaders have made unprecedented concessions – signals what may be the beginning of the end for the monarchies’ strategy of buying compliance with generous social welfare benefits.

“We’re told they’re stable regimes that manage to buy off protests,” says Toby Jones, a Middle East historian at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “But they’re characterized by deep disillusionment, and disappointment, about the nature of the political system.... There was always a simmering level of frustration, and that’s going to be there five years from now, 10 years from now, just like it has been.”

Regime change may not come swiftly to the Gulf, as it did to Tunisia and Egypt, but the newfound boldness to press for more rights is a revolution in its own right in countries where people have long been subdued by fear. A free-speech revolution >>> Kristen Chick, Correspondent, Jackie Spinner, Correspondent | Friday, March 11, 2011

Austria – Free Speech: The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Commences

GATES OF VIENNA: The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 1 >>> Baron Bodissey | Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Enters Vienna Courtroom

Mark Steyn Speaks on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff



HT: In Defense of Free Speech >>>

Wilders On Trial the Entire Month of October
GATES OF VIENNA: The PVV leader Geert Wilders was formally notified on Thursday that the criminal case against him will continue next month. The Amsterdam court continues the process starting on October 4. The verdict is due on November 2.

Wilders must be in court on October 4, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 19. Two weeks later the verdict is planned.

“It’s terrible that I have be in court trial the entire month of October,” Wilders said Thursday after he had received the summoning. “I will stand trial one whole month for freedom of speech.”

Three session days and the day of the verdict are on a day when Parliament assembles. Continue reading and comment >>> Robin van der Kloor, Translation from Elsevier | Sunday, September 12, 2010

Race Row Bundesbank Member to Quit
THE TELEGRAPH: Thilo Sarrazin, a member of Germany’s central Bundesbank who made disparaging remarks about Muslims and Jews in a book, has agreed to quit his position on the board.

Thilo Sarrazin, a member of the six-man board at the influential Bundesbank. Photo: The Telegraph
Mr Sarrazin will be leaving his post at the end of the month after reaching an agreement with the bank, said Bundesbank President Axel Weber.

His resignation comes after comments in interviews surrounding the release of his book, “Germany Abolishes Itself,” that Muslim immigrants in Europe are unwilling or incapable of integrating into western societies and that all Jews “share a certain gene” provoked a storm of controversy in Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel and several members of her government had called for his dismissal. >>> | Thursday, September 09, 2010

It really is coming to something here in the West when a man of this calibre has to leave his prestigious post just for saying the truth. I shall repeat what Herr Sarrazin stated: Muslims ARE incapable of integrating into German society, or any other Western society for that matter, simply because their prophet told them not to integrate. He told them to tell themselves apart from the infidel by dressing differently, by not mixing with them, and by not befriending them. Hence my sympathies are with Herr Sarrazin.

Angela Merkel and Christian Wulff have shown their true colours: THEY ARE WEAK AND UNPRINCIPLED. Angela Merkel, coming from the then communist East Germany should know better than many what it is like to live in a country where there is no freedom of speech. Her stance in this matter is therefore all the more surprising and perplexing. One can only conclude that neither Frau Merkel nor Herr Wulff deserve their elevated positions. – © Mark

Stifling Free Speech Is Not Really Free
In protecting Muslims from those who offend them, the West ill-serves Islam and those Muslims who seek its reform. Muslims need untrammelled free speech to awaken to the awareness of how totalitarian and comatose is their culture. – Salim Mansur, QMI Agency
TORONTO SUN – Comment: Free speech is not merely an ornamental bauble found in liberal democratic societies. It is the well-fought ground upon which the structures of such societies have been constructed.

It is free speech in practice, or its ideal subscribed to, that has distinguished Europe and western civilization from all others past and present. Its absence or suppression is the main feature of totalitarian culture.

Yet free speech has never been entirely free from siege by special interests.

Except for the United States where free speech is constitutionally protected by the first amendment, the exercise of free speech can still be constrained by the guardians of public interests as we see in the case of the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, indicted and brought to court for offending Muslims in Holland.

The trial of Wilders is as much a step backward from the ideal of free speech as it is indicative of how free people willingly compromise their freedom by forgetting their history.

In indicting Wilders for hate speech, the Dutch, and their Western supporters, have turned their backs to the long line of defenders of free speech as the cornerstone of liberty, from Spinoza and Voltaire to Emile Zola. >>> Salim Mansur, QMI Agency | Thursday, February 4, 2010

Hate Speech or Free Speech? Geert Wilders on Trial

Westergaard Wants to Meet His Would-be Killer
BBC: Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says he wants to meet the man accused of trying to kill him.

Mr Westergaard has been the target of at least three murder plots after drawing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. He was attacked in his home on New Year's Day.

After spending two weeks in a safe house, he has now returned home.

Malcolm Brabant reports. Watch BBC video >>> | Tuesday, January 19, 2010

BBC: What the Muhammad cartoons portray: Twelve caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in 2005 had a huge impact around the world, with riots in many Muslim countries the following year causing deaths and destruction - so what do the drawings actually say? >>> | Saturday, January 02, 2010

US Religious Freedom Report Hits Speech Curbs
VOICE OF AMERICA: The U.S. State Department's annual report on world-wide religious freedom, released Monday, was critical of what it says are international efforts to limit free speech in the name of combating defamation of religion. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, has been pushing such anti-defamation measures in U.N. bodies. 



The State Department report says the United States deplores actions that show disrespect for religious traditions, including Islam.



But it says the broad anti-defamation measures being sought by the Islamic Conference would have the effect of curbing debate about religious issues and should be discarded in favor of outreach and government defense of religious freedom and free speech.



The comments were the most prominent to date by the United States on efforts led by the OIC to get anti-defamation resolutions approved in the U.N. General Assembly and the U.N. Human Rights Commission.



In comments introducing the annual report, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States will always stand against religious-based discrimination and persecution, but that it strongly disagrees with those who would combat such problems by curbing free speech.



"The best antidote to intolerance is not the 'Defamation of Religions' approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and a vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression," said Secretary Clinton. >>> David Gollust, State Department | Monday, October 26, 2009

Leading Article: A Bad Week for Free Speech
THE INDEPENDENT: How could it have come to this? We live in a country where respect for free speech and the written word is centuries old, yet legislators in other countries feel they must pass laws protecting their citizens' liberties against British judges. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a law giving legislators the power to block libel judgments passed in the British courts. Three other American states have similar laws, all prompted by a judgment against the US author Rachel Ehrenfeld.

In her 2003 book Funding Evil, Dr Ehrenfeld accused a Saudi banker of providing financial support for al-Qa'ida and Hamas. Dr Ehrenfeld's book was not published in Britain, but about 20 copies were bought online through UK-registered websites, and some content was available online. On that flimsy basis, the aggrieved banker cleverly chose to sue Dr Ehrenfeld in London, where his case was heard by our most eminent libel judge, David Eady, who ordered the writer to pay £30,000 damages to the banker and his two sons, plus costs. >>> | Saturday, October 17, 2009

Robert Spencer: Obama Declares War on Free Speech
HUMAN EVENTS: The Obama Administration has now actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council last Friday, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

What could be wrong with that? Plenty.

First of all, there’s that little matter of the First Amendment, which preserves Americans’ right to free speech and freedom of the press, which are obviously mutually inclusive. Any law that infringed on speech at all -- far less in such vague and sweeping terms -- would be unconstitutional.

“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder -- or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.

Now no less distinguished a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave. The resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,” which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that’s “negative stereotyping.” >>> Robert Spencer | October 08, 2009

Spencer Talks Free Speech and Censorship on the Savage Nation

West Sees Free Speech at Risk in UN Racism Meet
THE STAR ONLINE: GENEVA - European countries signalled on Wednesday that they feared the universal right of free speech would be at risk if a United Nations conference on racism next month issues a call for a ban on "defamation of religion".

They also warned in speeches to the U.N.'s Human Rights Council that they could not accept any pillorying of Israel as "racist" nor any promotion of anti-Semitism at the Geneva gathering from April 20-24.

"The freedom of expression must be the cornerstone of our fight against racism," Sweden's delegate Frank Belfrage said. Britain's Human Rights Minister Mark Malloch Brown said limiting free speech would undermine tolerance.

Similar views have been expressed in the Council this week by Australia, France, Switzerland, Poland, Netherlands, Germany, and the Czech Republic speaking for the 27-nation European Union, among others.

The issues of freedom of speech and anti-Semitism have been set by Western countries, including the United States, as among their "red lines" for participation in the gathering, dubbed Durban II.

U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, who will preside over the conference, has sought to reassure doubters, arguing fears of anti-Semitic outbursts are unfounded.

But diplomats say memories of street marches targeting Jews in general at the first U.N. racism conference in Durban in 2001 remain strong and fears of a repeat have grown after protests in Europe over Israel's war against Palestinian militants in Gaza. >>> Copyright © 2008 Reuters | By Robert Evans | Wednesday, March 4, 2009

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback (US) Barnes & Noble >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Hardcover (US) Barnes & Noble >>>

Free Speech Advocates Launch Campaign for ‘International First Amendment’
Photo of Geert Wilders at Heathrow courtesy of CNS NEWS
CNSNEWS.COM: Troubled by attacks on free expression by groups wanting to shield Islam from criticism or scrutiny, free speech advocates are preparing to unveil a campaign for an “international First Amendment.”

The initiative will be launched by the International Free Press Society (IFPS) at an event in Washington, D.C., on Friday. Attending will be Geert Wilders, the Dutch lawmaker whose views on Islam have stoked controversy worldwide.

The event will incorporate a screening of Wilders’ short documentary, Fitna, which features passages from the Koran along with footage of terror attacks and jihadists extolling violence while quoting from Islam’s revered text.

The film has been viewed by millions online, but recent attempts to show it at the European Parliament ran into difficulties, and Wilders was refused entry into Britain earlier this month to attend a screening at the House of Lords. The British government said he “would threaten community security and therefore public security.”

A closed screening for U.S. lawmakers has been arranged at the Capitol building on Thursday, hosted by Republican Senator Jon Kyl.

Recent years have seen an escalating drive by Islamic countries, working through the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), to counter what they regard as blasphemy – anything calling into question the assertion that Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion.

Seeking to make it more difficult for people to challenge or criticize Islam, the OIC is promoting resolutions at the U.N. against “religious defamation,” based in part on the argument that anti-Islamic sentiment is a “contemporary form of racism.”

In a number of Islamic countries, blasphemy laws are enforced, often targeting Muslims who convert to another faith and are considered apostates under Islamic law (shari’a), but also anyone who questions Islamic teaching or practices associated with Islam.

In non-Muslim countries, especially in the West, “hate speech” regulations are sometimes used to similar effect, and Wilders himself is due to stand trial in the Netherlands soon on charges of “inciting hatred and discrimination.” >>> By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor | Thursday, February 26, 2009

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>

America on the Brink: Predictions
NEWS WITH VIEWS: Political Correctness and Freedom of Speech

The first thing that Socialists do when they gain power is try to silence free speech. Conservative Talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Laura Ingram, Lou Dobbs, etc. are already being criticized by “Progressives” in Congress. There is a serious effort underway right now to bring back a failed law, the oxymoronic "Fairness Doctrine," in a bold, open attempt to silence opposing political views. Internet news sites such as WorldNetDaily.com, NewsWithViews.com, DrudgeReport.com, InfoWars.com and many others will be silenced along with talk radio. In order for darkness (lies) to prevail, light (truth) has to be snuffed out.

Public scrutiny and criticism of elected officials will be forbidden. Any person exposing political corruption will be labeled anti-government. If they persist in attempting to correct that political corruption, they will be called a terrorist! All police departments around the country will be required to have terrorist units.

[In a communist country of my birth I remember that one could criticize any capitalist country one wishes as long as it wasn't yours or another communist country. Criticism of any official brought police in black uniform to your door usually at night when everyone was asleep.]

Religious Persecution and Sharia Law

Traditional churches will be attacked by Socialists, Feminists and Homosexuals. Christians will increasingly be ridiculed and called bigots because of their religious beliefs. Church services will be regularly disrupted. Under pressure, many church leaders will give-in, capitulating for the sake of peace. They will give up their moral principles, or face the anti-discrimination laws that will be passed to force churches, organizations and people to comply with the immoral doctrines of the socialist, secular humanists.

Since Christians are extremely apathetic today anyway, Islam will begin to become “acceptable” as an alternative to Christianity in America. It’s already spreading like wildfire in America’s prisons. Islamic (religious) Sharia law has gained a foothold in Great Britain and other European countries, with little or no opposition from Christian leadership. Sharia Law is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution or America's concept of religious freedom. >>> By Paul Walter | Monday, December 22, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback – USA)
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Hardcover – USA)