Does anyone think the NY Times would be upset if “hate speech” crackdowns and restrictions were enacted towards Conservatives, Tea Party members, or Christians? Anyhow, the Times was also not brave enough to show the total front cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo. This one is written by the editorial board
Wrong Responses to Charlie Hebdo
Leaders in Europe are justifiably trying to figure out what they should be doing to prevent terrorist attacks like the recent massacre at the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo. Regrettably, some politicians are proposing the kind of Internet censorship and surveillance that would do little to protect their citizens but do a lot to infringe on civil liberties.
Interesting, because that is exactly what is happening here in America, as it emanates from Liberals for a variety of reasons, especially on college campuses.
In Paris, a dozen interior ministers from European Union countries including France, Britain and Germany issued a statement earlier this week calling on Internet service providers to identify and take down online content “that aims to incite hatred and terror.†The ministers also want the European Union to start monitoring and storing information about the itineraries of air travelers. And in Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron suggested the country should ban Internet services that did not give the government the ability to monitor all encrypted chats and calls.
Strange, Obama and many Democrats (and, let’s face it, a few Republicans) want the same thing here.
Even before the Charlie Hebdo attack, European leaders were proposing or enacting harsh measures. For example, the French Parliament passed a law in September that allows the authorities to temporarily seize the passports and identity cards of citizens who seem intent on joining foreign terrorist organizations. And this week, French officials said they had arrested 54 people for hate speech, including a controversial comedian.
I guess there’s a certain type of “hate speech” and a certain type of action that the NY Times doesn’t want to restrict. Weird, eh?
Appealing as these measures may sound in the aftermath of a tragedy, they are deeply flawed. Countries like France and Germany have long had stricter controls on speech than the United States. For example, their governments have in the past forced Internet firms like Yahoo and Twitter to take down Nazi propaganda. But those decisions are generally made by government officials or judges, not technology companies.
Notice there really wasn’t a condemnation of those restrictions against modern day Nazis.
Of course, governments can and should take steps to identify threats and prevent terrorist attacks through targeted intelligence gathering. But there is good reason to believe that widespread censorship and intrusive surveillance will only undermine personal freedoms and could even make us less secure.
I will wholly agree that restricting speech is dangerous. The government going after folks who speak out is dangerous. Why does the NY Times, though, typically agree with restrictions on Free Speech here in America that it doesn’t agree with? College campuses are hotbeds of free speech restrictions, particularly at government run/funded ones. I can’t remember the NY Times speaking out on that.
That said, does government have the ability and right to deal with speech that is threatening? As the saying goes, you can’t legally shout fire in a crowded movie theater (unless there is actually a fire). You can’t threaten to kill people. You can’t threaten to burn things. Etc and so on. Well, actually, you can, but there are Consequences for doing so.
In fact, France recently arrested a comedian for posting remarks on Facebook supporting the murdering terrorists.
http://news.yahoo.com/french-comedian-dieudonnes-arrest-sparks-free-speech-debate-150125064.html;_ylt=A0LEVjMdO7lUKyIApukPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMG04Z2o2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw–
It sounds as if France is going after Islamic terrorist in a way that American rightists would support!
Some speech should be freer than others.
They may be. The French are talking about eliminating the “no go” zones that reduced their ability to chase and capture the Charlie Hebdo terrorists. The French are talking about helping more with the world wide threat from terrorism by going after training facilities in other countries.
However, as Teach points out, the left protested, marched and stood for free speech saying “Je suis Charlie,” and now that the initial fury is passed, the Left looks to restrict speech that “offends” (which is a moving standard.)
There is a difference between the left and the right. Both groups will be offended by what may be said or done. The Right responds by boycotts or more speech. The Left responds with more calling for and enacting laws restricting the speech they do not like.
Do you think leftists are responsible for arresting and trying the comedian for agreeing with the terrorists?
Can you give some examples of American leftists restricting speech?
Oh, Jeff, did you step into it with the statement about the left restricting speech. Do you read or study anything??? Have you not heard of Wilson who instituted some of the worst laws ever on restricting speech. He was the darling of the left. Then we can have good old FDR in the mix. Despite the fact that he was a Republican, I think of Lincoln as being a liberal and he certainly restricted speech (before you get on your high horse, he didn’t free slave and did not start the Civil War to free slaves, so save your time). Then, if you would look at any of the Supreme Court decisions of the last 50 years, you will find that the left leaning judges always vote to limit free expression.
At the end of the day, the only group that will be able to be criticized will be us rednecks. We have no respect.
Being that the so called “hate speech” laws were passed by left leaning governments within the EU and France agreeing with the laws, the answer is an unequivocal “yes.”
You mean like speech codes on college campuses? You mean like my city whose left leaning City Council passed a law that does not allow criticism of Council members or City employees at City council meetings?