Douglas Murray and Dave Rubin Talk Free Speech, ISIS, Israel (Full Interview)

Robert Spencer: How Islam Killed Free Speech in 30 Years

Behind the War on Free Speech (Left AND Right) Guests Diana West, Gad Saad

Tundra Tabloids Questions Jyllands-Posten Flemming Rose on Free Speech

HT: Gates of Vienna »

Flemming Rose »

Hitchens Schools a Muslim on Free Speech

David Starkey Schools Muslim about Why Islam is Primitive and Backward

David Starkey educates Mehdi Hasan on Free Speech & "backward Islam".

Fox’s Bolling On Geller: Stop Worrying About ‘Offending Muslims’

The Cartoon Wars

GATESTONE INSTITUTE: It is most important to keep on challenging these would-be censors, so that people with Kalashnikov rifles do not make our customs and laws. / One of the false presumptions of our time is that people on the political left are motivated by good intentions even when they do bad things, while people on the political right are motivated by bad intentions even when they do good things. / When people prefer to focus on the motives of the victims rather than on the motives of the attackers, they will ignore the single most important matter: that an art exhibition, or free speech, has been targeted. / It does not matter if you are right-wing or left-wing, or American, Danish, Dutch, Belgian or French. These particularities may matter greatly and be endlessly interesting to people in the countries in question. But they matter not a jot to ISIS or their fellow-travellers. What these people are trying to do is to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws across the entire world. That is all that matters.

ISIS appears to have inspired its first terrorist attack in the United States: in Garland, Texas. This item may have slipped the attention of many people because as is so often the case today, much of the reporting and commentary has got caught up on other, supplementary issues.

The supplementary issues are first, that the attack targeted a competition set up to show images of what people thought Muhammad may have looked like. Then, there is the identity of the people who organized the exhibition and spoke at it.

Before coming to this, let us just return to that main issue. Since January, the idea that ISIS-like groups can inspire people to carry out murderous attacks in Paris and Copenhagen has come to be accepted. But that this can happen in Texas, of all places, could yet have an even worse "chilling effect" on free speech than the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen. No European country has the constitutional commitment to free speech of the United States. And Texas is not stuck in the moral relativism and fearful multiculturalism of most European countries.

There will be a feeling, post-Garland, that if ISIS can strike in Texas, it can strike anyplace. The entire developed world is therefore a potential site for an attack from ISIS. Although no one will put his hands up and surrender, neither will anyone be likely to draw attention to himself by saying or doing anything that might displease such homicidal censors. » | Douglas Murray | Thursday, May 07, 2015

Texas Attack Shows How US Protects Free Speech – No Matter How Offensive

THE GUARDIAN: Critics say Pamela Geller’s event was provocative and arguably crossed the line into hate speech – but protections afforded by the first amendment are unique

The fatal shootings in Garland, Texas, of two extremist gunmen as they attacked an anti-Islamist meeting was a vivid reminder of the virtually unique protections afforded by the US constitution to free speech, no matter how hate-filled or provocative, according to prominent first amendment experts.

In many countries across Europe and around the world, Pamela Geller and the American Freedom Defense Initiative, who organized the event in Garland, might have fallen foul of hate speech laws such as the UK’s 1986 public order act or article 266(b) of Denmark’s criminal code. » | Ed Pilkington in New York | Wednesday, May 06, 2015

Robert Spencer on Hillary Clinton’s War against Free Speech

HT: Robert Spencer @ Jihad Watch »

Pat Condell: Free Speech on Campus

Time to stop indulging privileged militant “progressive” puritan bigots.

Free speech? Not at four in five UK universities

Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Minister Has Dared to Tell the Truth about Saudi Arabia. What Happens Now Concerns Us All

THE SPECTATOR: Margot Wallström’s principled stand deserves wide support. Betrayal seems more likely

If the cries of ‘Je suis Charlie’ were sincere, the western world would be convulsed with worry and anger about the Wallström affair. It has all the ingredients for a clash-of-civilisations confrontation.

A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men, she was telling no more than the truth. Wallström went on to condemn the Saudi courts for ordering that Raif Badawi receive ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for setting up a website that championed secularism and free speech. These were ‘mediaeval methods’, she said, and a ‘cruel attempt to silence modern forms of expression’. And once again, who can argue with that?

The backlash followed the pattern set by Rushdie, the Danish cartoons and Hebdo. Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world’s ‘rich and varied ethical standards’ — standards so rich and varied, apparently, they include the flogging of bloggers and encouragement of paedophiles. Meanwhile, the Gulf Co-operation Council condemned her ‘unaccept-able [?] interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’, and I wouldn’t bet against anti-Swedish riots following soon.

Yet there is no ‘Wallström affair’. Outside Sweden, the western media has barely covered the story, and Sweden’s EU allies have shown no inclination whatsoever to support her. A small Scandinavian nation faces sanctions, accusations of Islamophobia and maybe worse to come, and everyone stays silent. As so often, the scandal is that there isn’t a scandal. » | Nick Cohen | Saturday, March 28, 2015

David Starkey Educates Mehdi Hasan on Free Speech & "Backward Islam"

Silence! Political Correctness Hampering ‘Free Speech’ in UK Universities

Free speech in British university campuses is in danger of being silenced. A survey shows UK educational institutions are pulling the plug on debates and societies they deem controversial, often going far beyond any legal requirement. RT's Polly Boiko has more.

Avigdor Lieberman Urges Supporters to Distribute Copies of Charlie Hebdo

Avigdor Lieberman called for the move
on 'free speech' grounds

THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH: Move by Israeli foreign minister comes after Muslim complaints over book store's planned sale of French satrical magazine featuring caricature of Prophet Mohammed

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's combative foreign minister, has urged supporters to distribute copies of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo depicting the Prophet Mohammed after a leading book store cancelled a planned gala sale following complaints by Muslims.

Mr Lieberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, called for the move on "free speech" grounds after Steimatsky, Israel's largest book chain, called off the event at its flagship Ramat Gan shop, near Tel Aviv, after Muslim leaders of Israel's Arab community pleaded with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to intervene.

The store imported 700 copies of the first edition of Charlie Hebdo produced following the murder of 12 people by French jihadists at the magazine's Paris offices on January 7. » | Robert Tait, Jerusalem | Sunday, January 25, 2015

New UK Law Would Ban Critics of Sharia from Broadcasting, Protesting or Even Posting Messages on Facebook

JIHAD WATCH: The last free person in Britain, if there is one, might as well turn out the lights. If this becomes law, Britain is finished as a free society. As the law would also forbid opposition to gay marriage, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a proponent of Sharia protested against gay marriage — but Muslim groups are largely for it, since it opens the door to the legalization of polygamy.

In any case, future free historians, if there are any, will look back at David Cameron and Theresa May as essentially saboteurs and traitors who administered the coup de grace to their own nation as a free society. If Britain were still a sane society, as soon as this law was suggested there would have been a no-confidence vote and the Conservative government would have fallen — followed by the arrest of Cameron and May and criminal proceedings against them. Instead, Britain appears prepared to go quietly, although civil war still very likely looms in its future. Read on and comment » | Roberts Spencer | Friday, October 31, 2014

Related: Sharia Law or Gay Marriage Critics Would Be Branded ‘Extremists’ under Tory Plans, Atheists and Christians Warn »

Robert Spencer and Michael Coren on Jihad and the War on Free Speech

Robert Spencer on Michael Coren's Show: Worcester and the Leftist/Islamic War on Free Speech

Jihad Watch »

Pat Condell: Islamic Cultural Terrorism

Leveson Report: New Legislation Would Be 'Dangerous' to Free Speech, New York Times Warns

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: New legislation proposed by Lord Justice Leveson would be “potentially dangerous” to Britain’s 300-year-old tradition of press freedom, the New York Times has warned.

New legislation proposed by Lord Justice Leveson would be “potentially dangerous” to Britain’s 300-year-old tradition of press freedom, the New York Times has warned.

In a leader, America’s newspaper of record said statutory underpinning of a new watchdog body would be “a big step in the wrong direction” for a country whose press already operates in a “harsh” legal environment.

It notes: “Millions of Britons were justifiably outraged over last year’s serial revelations of illegal and unethical behaviour by the powerful and influential tabloid press in Britain. But the regulatory remedies proposed [by Leveson] seem misplaced, excessive and potentially dangerous to Britain’s centuries-old traditions of a press free from government regulation. » | Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter | Friday, November 30, 2012