Entries Tagged as 'Free Speech'

Will Canada Repeal its Hate Speech Law?

November 23rd, 2011 at 10:01 am 58 Comments

A virtue of minority governments in Canada is that the ruling party has got to pay attention to its Parliamentary opposition, drugstore and must negotiate compromises. A negative is that legislation can get mired in debate and nothing happens.

A virtue of majority governments is that worthwhile legislation that couldn’t be passed in minority days, purchase can get whistled through with neither fuss not fanfare.

Click here to read more

Islamist Violence Harms Muslims the Most

November 9th, 2011 at 1:04 pm 25 Comments

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, order the reaction to the Paris fire-bombing of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is another example of how fearful Western society is of offending Islamic extremists.

Hirsi Ali is the Somali woman who fled to Europe to escape an arranged marriage with someone in Toronto. She went to university and was elected to the Dutch Parliament. She migrated to the U.S. after collaborating on a documentary about the oppression of Muslim women (Submission) that resulted in filmmaker Theo Van Gogh being murdered and death threats against her.

Click here to read more

If Corporations Can be Taxed, They Can Lobby

October 27th, 2011 at 2:20 pm 120 Comments

As long as the private sector is subject to government regulation, see it will be involved in the political process. It is its constitutional right.

The Occupy Wall Street protestors disagree. Hoisting signs with slogans such as, viagra sale “I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Georgia executes one, click ” protesters rail against the right of corporations to promote their views in the marketplace of ideas. This begs the question: is the problem that corporations have too much influence in politics, or that politicians and politics have too much influence on corporations?

Click here to read more

Is Threatening to Kill the President Still Illegal?

July 21st, 2011 at 5:20 pm 11 Comments

On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that comments which encouraged the assassination of President Obama and predicted that he would have “a .50 cal in the head soon” while using racial slurs against him were protected by the First Amendment. While the decision seems to be a plausible reading of existing precedents, a former Secret Service agent contacted by FrumForum thought that it exposed the president to unacceptable risk.

Click here to read more

Don’t Let Radicals Stifle Free Speech

April 3rd, 2011 at 6:45 pm 49 Comments

On March 20th, pills a xenophobic idiot masquerading as a man of God lit a holy scripture on fire. This act was a proximate cause of events that caused 12 innocent people to lose their lives in Afghanistan.

This fiasco is yet another reminder of just how powerful speech is. Another group of people have found their way into the news because they (the Westboro Baptist Church) “protest” the military’s now defunct “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (a policy which, in a fitting reminder of just how dull these protesters really are, they believe to be supportive of gay rights) by picketing the funerals of our nation’s dead soldiers.

Both of these groups caused immeasurable harm and this morning, our nation’s leaders were rightfully outraged. Of the Florida incident, General Petraeus explained “it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.”

Following up on Face the Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham went even further:

“I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. During WWII, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. Free speech is a great idea, but we are in a war. Any time in America we can push back against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we oughtta do that. I think it would be right for Congress to enforce what he [General Petraeus] said.”

While the speech is certainly reprehensible, Senator Graham’s quotation is alarming and incorrect. Congress should not, and indeed, cannot take the sort of action to which Senator Graham alludes. As the Senator well knows (he is a lawyer by training), the 1st Amendment expressly prohibits the sort of censorship he has in mind. As the Chief Justice explained earlier this year in the funeral protest case, the United States chooses “to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

The Florida Quran burning was irresponsible and has caused harm.  But the answer to this ignorance is more speech, not less.