True Tolerance, Or Else

Via 5280 magazine I found the Focus on the Family "true tolerance" web page, the point of which is to promote tolerance of anti-homosexual views. In other words, we are to tolerate intolerance.

And I quite agree that we do need to tolerate intolerance, even as we speak out against nasty sorts of intolerance. That is, the view that homosexuality is somehow inherently sinful is wrong. However, people properly have the right to express (with their own resources) whatever viewpoint they wish.

The matter is complicated by the tax funding of schools. Taking people's money by force to finance either a pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual agenda is wrong and a violation of free speech. Tax funded institutions invite governmental oversight, including protections of speech.

While tax-funded schools cannot properly promote religious views, neither can they properly suppress such views by students in the appropriate context.

And Focus on the Family wants to make darn sure that schools recognize that. The document "What School Officials Should Know About Addressing Homosexuality in Public Schools" helpfully warns schools about adopting policies that "could very easily result in litigation."

Of course, some traditionalists might argue that the proper purpose of school is to teach students about the world and skills for dealing with it, rather than to push for or against some cultural or political agenda.

Bailouts Versus Free Speech

Fox News reports:

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

However, forcing people to fund schools that do allow "religious worship" violates their free speech rights. We have the right not to finance the propagation of ideas with which we disagree.

There is, of course, an obvious solution to this that violates no one's rights of free speech. Reject the bailout.

Censorship for Allah

"A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Koran a 'fascist book,' a Dutch court ruled Wednesday."

Because the best way to demonstrate that the Koran is not a "fascist book" is to promote fascism in the name of the Koran.

Unfortunately, and hypocritically, the lawmaker in question "called for a ban on the Koran 'the same way we ban "Mein Kampf"'." Someone who wants to censor the Koran (or Hitler's screed) can hardly complain when somebody wants to censor him.

If the West loses free speech, it loses itself. There is no more important political issue than maintaining free speech, no matter who finds it offensive.

More Assaults on Free Speech

Does free speech have a future in Europe?

Matt Purple writes:

Ian McEwan, author of widely praised novels Atonement and Enduring Love, condemned Muslim extremists for attempting to establish a tyrannical society intolerant of women and homosexuals. His comments were made in the context of defending his friend and fellow novelist Martin Amis, who had previously been denounced as a racist for other supposedly anti-Islamic remarks.

"Martin is not a racist," McEwan told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. "And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on –- we know it well." ...

McEwan's comments caused an uproar and were promptly denounced by the Muslim Council of Britain.

And that could be just the beginning. McEwan could also be brought up on hate crime charges, according to The [UK] Independent.

Is it true that Islamism promotes oppression of women and murder of homosexuals? Yes. It is also true that Islamism endorses terrorism and generally opposes civil liberties across the board.

For these reasons, I myself despise Islamism (not to be confused with modernist practitioners of Islam). And if we reach the point where we cannot say that without facing threats of criminal charges, then we'll no longer be living in America.

Censorship of Religious Criticism

Recent cases in France and Canada illustrate the growing movement to censor speech critical of religion. This trend must be fought, or liberty is lost.

The Ayn Rand Institute reviews the French case:

"The conviction of Brigitte Bardot by a French court for 'inciting hatred against Muslims' is a gross violation of her right to free speech and should be denounced by every civilized nation," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Bardot was fined $23,325 on Tuesday -- barely escaping a jail sentence -- for a statement made in a letter to France's interior minister, protesting Muslims' refusal to stun animals before slaughtering them during religious holidays. The fine was levied for the following statement: "I've had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, (and) destroying our country by imposing their ways."

"Bardot's statement was an expression of political opinion and obviously did not constitute coercion, or threat of coercion, against anyone," said Bowden. "As such, the French government has no right to fine or penalize her in any way for the exercise of her individual right of free speech.

"Moreover, there is no rational basis for a crime of 'inciting hatred.' Hatred is the emotion one feels in response to evil. Thus, to criminalize the incitement of hatred is to criminalize the expression of moral judgment, inasmuch as any moral denunciation may cause others to hate the alleged evildoer." ...

David Harsanyi of The Denver Post discusses the case in Canada:

Steyn is a U.S.-based journalist, columnist and best-selling author of "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It," a book that deals with demographics and Muslim influence in the Western world. Not only is Steyn's work widely read, his opinions -- whether you find them agreeable or not -- are also worthy of debate.

Yet when Maclean's, the largest-circulation magazine in Canada, published a Steyn essay based on "America Alone," it sparked a volley of suits and a vile legal ordeal.

First, the Ontario Human Rights Commission held a tribunal and deemed Steyn's essay "Islamophobic." Now, the British Columbia human rights commission in Vancouver has held a week-long trial on the matter. A federal commission is waiting on investigators to decide whether to proceed against Steyn.

Within the context of individual rights, the freedom of speech must be held as absolute. Freedom of speech does not protect violations of rights such as fraud and incitements to violence, but certainly it must protect criticisms of any ideology, including Islam, regardless of what the targets of the criticisms think or do about it. (Any civilized person responds to argument with argument.)

Free speech is a pillar of a free society. Censorship is an early mark of tyranny.

Dutch Museums Pulls Muhammad Photos

I don't enjoy Sooreh Hera's photographs. I don't consider them to be art or even very artistic. But the photographer, originally from Iran, has an absolute moral right to take such photos and display them in consenting establishments -- and her right should be protected by law.

Unfortunately, because Islamists have threatened violence, a Dutch museums have pulled Hera's photographs. Fox reports:

The most controversial images feature gay men posed in various stages of undress. In one, a man wears leather chaps with his buttocks exposed, wearing a mask of Ali, the son-in law of the prophet Muhammad. In other photo two men are shirtless wearing masks of both Ali (on the left) and Muhammad (on the right). ...

Museum directors initially planned to display the work of the 35-year-old artist. But now, citing fear of reprisals and political pressure, they've changed their mind, much to her dismay.

A museum does have the right to choose which works to display. If a museum had decided not to display Hera's photographs beccause they aren't very good, that would have been no violation of Hera's rights. (One museum did reject the photos on the basis of quality.) But, by threatening violence, Islamists have violated the rights both of the museums and of Hera.

Fox continues:

...John Voll, associate director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, said Hera's works cross the line and are offensive.

He said freedom of speech does not mean that one has the freedom to be as insulting as possible.

"It isn't as if we have absolute freedom in the United States to be offensive and insulting just to be different," Voll said in an interview.

"Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain used the n-word about Obama while campaigning? There are consequences. Free speech is not absolute," he said.

Freedom of speech does indeed mean that we have the "freedom to be as insulting as possible," within the context of rights, meaning that libel, slander, and incitements to violence are excluded. (Inciting someone to violence does not mean insulting them such that they become violent, as Islamists would have us believe; it means actively exhorting others to commit acts of violence, as Islamists do.)

Voll confuses freedom of speech -- one's legal right to say and publish whatever one wants with one's own resources -- with the social consequences of speech. McCain has the right to call Obama the n-word. And the rest of us would have the right to vote against him for doing so.

Fox reports:

"The Netherlands is very much a flashpoint right now. It looks as if there is going to have to be some hard choices made about whether we"re going to defend our civilization or not," Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch told FOXNews.com.

Spencer says this sort of pressure by Muslim groups "who don't hesitate to traffic in violent intimidation" will continue to undercut freedom of speech until it no longer exists.

"The ultimate goal of people making threats is to make it illegal or too dangerous or both for anybody to say anything considered to be insulting to Muhammad or Allah, to impose the Islamic code, which is the goal of Usama bin Laden, upon the West," he said.

"It's time to take a stand and say we believe in freedom of speech and that means some people will be offended."

Whether you praise or condemn Hera's photographs, defenders of liberty must defend her right to create and display such work, free from violence and threats thereof. Free speech protects offensive speech or it protects nothing at all.

Anti-Abortion Group Sues Google

As I've pointed out, Google's ad policies are completely arbitrary and in fact violated by Google itself. I wrote,

If Google flagrantly violates its own stated policy for ads, then clearly that particular policy is meaningless. However, if, as one of the comments on an earlier post alleges, Google has pulled its ads from another web page because of that page's arguments, is Google opening itself up to potential legal action?

However, I'm not sure that a recent law suit has much merit. Fox reports:

A Christian group in Britain is suing Google over the search engine's alleged refusal to place an ad related to abortion.

According to the Christian Institute, the text ad would have popped up on the right side of a user's screen whenever the word "abortion" was searched for or prominently appeared.

It would have read: "UK abortion law: Key views and news on abortion law from The Christian Institute. www.christian.org.uk". ...

Google rejected the ad with the statement, "Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'abortion and religion-related content,'" according to the Christian Institute's press release.

The Christian Institute counters that "Google is happy to allow adverts for non-religious sites with views on abortion," and is taking the Internet giant to court on grounds of religious discrimination. ...

Searches for "abortion" on both the American and British Google Web sites bring up ads for abortion providers, but none to political, advocacy or religious groups on either side of the issue.

Both Google sites, however, include an ad for StandUpGirl.com, a Web site aimed at talking teenage girls out of having abortions.

I'll try to briefly untangle the issue. A suit based on "religious discrimination" is illegitimate. Google has property rights, and thus it has the right to set whatever ad policies it deems fit. To take a local example, some Colorado publications refuse to run ads for firearms.

The potential problem involves contract. Is Google effectively making a contradictory offer to would-be ad purchasers? If Google is simultaneously saying, through its actions, that ads about abortion are fine, but then indicating that certain ads about abortion are forbidden, that could be a problem. Then the issue would be that people spend their resources to set up ads with Google that Google may then arbitrarily deny. Unfortunately, I was not able to locate Google's policies regarding ads pertaining to abortion.

What this is not is a free-speech issue. If Google refuses to do business with certain advertisers, Google is not thereby violating free speech. Freedom of speech protects people from government censorship; it does not impose a duty on some to publicize the speech of others. Indeed, forcing one party to promote the views of others violates that party's freedom of speech.

However, it might be a fairness issue. Google ought not arbitrarily deny some ads but not others or impose contradictory standards.

Moreover, it seems to me that in the rough-and-tumble world of the internet, it's a bit silly for a large company to refuse to do business with Christians with an anti-abortion agenda. I go back to the Ann Coulter test: if Google will let Coulter display Google ads, can Google reasonably exclude others with less contentious views?

Muslims Top Catholics; Fitna Update

Fox has a couple of interesting news items about Islam. The first reports:

Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday.

"For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.

He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population -- a stable percentage -- while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.

Formenti offered a reason for the trends: "[W]hile Muslim families... continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer."

However, "Christians make up 33 percent of the world population, Formenti said."

So, combined, Muslims plus Christians make up just over half of the earth's population. Regardless of which sect is on top, monotheism is clearly dominant.

In other news, "Nations around the world are protesting the release of a Dutch lawmaker's anti-Islamic film." The film in question is Fitna. It's unclear to me whether YouTube videos referred to as "Fitna" that I was unable to watch are related to the Fitna in question, but it seems not. The link to the video that Fox uses works at this time.

The video contains three main elements: select versus from the Quran that endorse violence, recorded speeches by various Muslims that endorse violence, and scenes of Islamic violence. The movie does not demonstrate that Islam is inherently violent, but it does demonstrate that various Muslims have, in fact, endorsed and carried out terrorist violence. Indeed, the creator of the film, Geert Wilders, has received death threats. (I have read claims alleging that Wilders supports policies that I oppose, including censorship, but I don't know whether those claims are true. Regardless, he deserves freedom of speech and the right to live without fear of being murdered.)

If Islam does not promote violence, then it is up to the followers of Islam to prove it by abstaining from, preventing, and denouncing Islamic violence.

The story from Fox continues, "Despite their condemnation, the European leaders defended the right to freedom of speech and called on Muslims to react peacefully." At least freedom of speech remains a live issue. Unfortunately, "hundreds of Indonesian students took to the streets Sunday... demanding that authorities shut down websites carrying Geert Wilders' film."

And the group Muslims for Free Speech said... nothing, because, as far as I could find with a quick internet search, there is no such organization.

I did check the Minaret of Freedom; a search of "free speech" there pulled up ten hits, most of which are not relevant. At least the organization did criticize the use of legislation to censor speech:

Dutch extremist politician Geert Wilders finally releases his anti-Islam film online, but his project of incitement might be undermined by another Islamophobe as Muhammad (PBUH) cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says he'll sue over the film's unlawful use of his drawing…

* Online, a Violent View of Islam (Washington Post)
* Cartoonist to Sue Over Islam Film (BBC News)

…meanwhile the UN Human Rights Council passes an ill-conceived OIC-backed resolution using legislation rather than the free market of ideas to counter hate speech against other faiths:

* UN OKs Islamic Text Against Defamation (Associated Press/Washington Post)

The organization does not explain what constitutes "Islamophobia" -- apparently anything critical of Islam qualifies. Nor the does the organization explain why it thinks Fitna constitutes "hate speech."

There is, however, very obvious "hate speech" associated with Fitna: it is the speech coming from the recordings of Islamists, such as when one Islamic leader pulls out a sword while exhorting a crowd to behead Jews.

Update: I did find a release from "Young Muslims for Freedom of Speech:"

The Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO) condemns any form of blasphemy that was displayed in the printing of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad. We are dismayed at the publications and voice our strong objection to this treatment of Prophet Mohammed and any other Prophet (peace and blessings be on them) as being insulting and unacceptable.

Khallad Swaid, President of FEMYSO said: "The freedom of speech is an important fundamental right, which is not to be compromised, but as everything else, has its limits."

"Where religious beliefs, regardless of the religion, or feelings are hurt, its limit has been exceeded." We welcome critical debate but this is an abuse of the freedom of speech which has deliberately provoked Muslims and fuelled hatred and this is unacceptable. Therefore we call on all sections of the media to be more sensitive and responsible and on the governments to take a more robust stance in condemning such offensive images. The FEMYSO [Forum of Eurpoean Muslim Youth and Studnt Organisations] condemns with the strongest terms any violence against people or objects and calls upon all Muslims to protest by peaceful means and respect our fellow Europeans who are not to blame generaly. This neither has been the way the Prophet Muhammad reacted at any time himself nor is it considered to be of civilised manner. He always searched for ways using dialogue to communicate, exchange and explain himself towards his counterpart. We also suggest to our member organisations to use this opportunity to introduce to their societies the life and character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), who was always seeking justice and peace.

I find several things about this release interesting. At least the release "condemns... violence." Unfortunately, the release does not actually advocate freedom of speech. It does not condemn censorship, but it does claim that free speech "has its limits." It condemns the cartoons -- and, by implication, any criticism of Islam or even any portrayal of the image of Muhammad -- as "blasphemous." Moreover, the release blames the Danish cartoons for Islamic violence, which is absurd.

Fitna and Free Speech

I have not seen the film Fitna, because, when I tried to watch it on YouTube, YouTube offered only the following messages: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." "This account is suspended." So I don't know what the film contains other than what I've read in the media, aside from a few minutes I saw before the videos were pulled. I am not at this point able to judge either the film or its creator.

The AP reported that the film's creator, Geert Wilders, "lives under police protection due to death threats." The article adds, "A Dutch court will hear a complaint lodged by Muslim groups seeking to bar Wilders from releasing the film March 28, but there is no legal barrier preventing Wilders from releasing his film before then."

The article states, "Wilders has not described the 15-minute movie [which appeared to be much longer on YouTube before it was removed from YouTube], due to be released by March 31, in detail but has said it will underscore his view that Islam's holy book is 'fascist'."

So Wilders has claimed that the Quran is fascist, and therefore various defenders of the Quran, in order to disprove his claim, are trying to censor his film or murder him.

Wafa Sultan Defends Liberty

Along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan is among the most courageous people in the world. As Rule of Reason pointed out, Sultan recently debated an Egyptian about religion. The video and transcript are available. Sultan said:

All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death. The Danish cartoons have managed to break down the first brick in the wall of that prison, and to open up a window, through which the sunrays enter, after a lengthy darkness. The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared. They did not appear out of the blue, and the cartoonist did not dig them out of his imagination. Rather, they are a reflection of his knowledge. Westerners who read the words of the Prophet Muhammad 'Allah has given me sustenance under the shadow of my sword' cannot imagine Muhammad's turban in the shape of a dove of peace rather than in the shape of a bomb. The Muslims must learn how to listen to the criticism of others, and maybe then they will reexamine their terrorist teachings. When they manage to do so, the world will view them in a better light, and consequently, it will draw them in a better light. The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons, and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true. The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts. Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions, and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally.

The moderator of the television show said, "How come freedom of expression in the West is sacred only when it comes to degrading the Muslims? Are they allowed to talk about the Holocaust? Are they allowed to talk about Christianity? That is the question. Cinemas were burned down in the West when they talked about Christ."

There is no legitimate comparison of free speech between the Muslim world and the West. The Muslim world routinely practices censorship and threatens to murder people for their speech. The West -- and especially the United States -- upholds free speech in almost every case. (The few exceptions should be eliminated.) The comment about cinemas being burned down is a fabrication, as Sultan pointed out.

Meanwhile, in Iran...

Iran's Culture Ministry on Sunday announced the closure of nine cinema and lifestyle magazines for publishing pictures and stories about the life of "corrupt" foreign film stars and promoting "superstitions."

The Press Supervisory Board, a body controlled by hard-liners, also sent warning notes to 13 other publications and magazines on "observing the provisions of the press law," the ministry said on its Web site. ...

The ministry said it shut them down for "using photos of artists, especially foreign corrupt film stars, as instruments (to arouse desire), publishing details about their decadent private lives, propagating medicines without authorization, promoting superstitions."

That's rich: Islamic fascists imposing censorship to prevent the promotion of superstitions!

While there are some Americans who wish to impose censorship in the U.S. (who are in cases regarding alleged obscenity primarily motivated by religious beliefs), most Americans (including religious ones) are dedicated to the rights of free speech. While much of the Muslim world called for the murder of the Danish cartoonists, most of America stood up for free speech. To give just one example, the Rocky Mountain News published not only one of the Danish cartoons but various other cartoons offensive to various groups, as explained in an editorial and an article by the publisher, John Temple. Temple wrote:

I thought you might be interested in seeing what readers said, given that the Rocky Mountain News is one of the few American newspapers to expose its readers to any of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that are blamed for rioting across the Muslim world.

"Thank you," was the consistent message.

Indeed, the News, and people like Sultan, deserve our thanks for defending freedom of speech.

Rose on the Danish Cartoons

I have been posting about the desire and alleged attempt of various Muslims to murder a cartoonist for depicting Mohammad. On February 15, Flemming Rose came out with an excellent article on the matter for the Wall Street Journal. Rose is the the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that first published the cartoon.

Rose reviews the basic facts about the cartoonist:

For the past three months [Kurt] Westergaard and his wife have been on the run. Mr. Westergaard did the most famous of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 -- the one depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban. The cartoon was a satirical comment on the fact that some Muslims are committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam and the prophet. Tragically, Mr. Westergaard's fate has proven the point of his cartoon: In the early hours of Tuesday morning Danish police arrested three men who allegedly had been plotting to kill him.

Thankfully, Rose points out, "17 Danish newspapers have published Mr. Westergaard's cartoon" in defense of free speech. Rose adds, "As George Orwell put it in the suppressed preface to 'Animal Farm': 'If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'."

Unfortunately, the threats against the cartoonist are just the tip of the iceberg. Rose continues:

In Oslo a gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings, showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog's body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been under police protection since the fall of 2007. In Holland the municipal museum in The Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera of gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali; Ms. Hera has received several death threats and is in hiding. In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. In Egypt bloggers are in jail after having "insulted Islam." In Afghanistan the 23-year-old Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed "blasphemous" material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. And in India the Bengal writer Taslima Nasreen is in a safe house after having been threatened by people who don't like her books.

Quite obviously, liberty, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion, is incompatible with Islam as practiced in these cases. Sadly, Muslim voices defending freedom of speech are too few and too quiet.

Rose goes on to argue in the article that the West must not bend to these threats against freedom of speech, but must instead recommit itself to its defense. Those who value their liberty owe Rose a debt of gratitude for his courageous and tireless defense of freedom. And now Westergaard too has become a hero of liberty.

AFP reports that Westergaard "said he considered himself an atheist, adding: 'I feel that I am fighting a righteous fight to defend freedom of expression, which is under threat'."

(Thanks to Lin Zinser of FIRM for links to both articles.)

Americans worthy of the title will join Westergaard's righteous fight.

European Papers Stand Up for Free Speech

When somebody started selling "Looking Good for Jesus" makeup kits in Singapore, Christians complained, as is their political right.

When a Danish cartoonist depicted Mohammed in order to make a serious sociopolitical point, some Muslims allegedly tried to kill him.

Thankfully, not only did police disrupt the attempted murder, but various European newspapers republished the cartoon to protest the attempted murder and to stand for free speech. CNN reports:

Newspapers reprint Prophet Mohammed cartoon

Newspapers across Europe Wednesday reprinted the controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked worldwide protests two years ago.

The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.

Berlingske Tidende, was one of the newspapers involved in the republication by newspapers in Denmark. It said: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend," in comments reported by The Associated Press.

Newspapers in Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands also republished the drawing Wednesday as part of their coverage of Tuesday's arrests.

The cartoon was originally published by the Jullands-Posten (also spelled "Jyllands") in 2005. In 2006, I republished all of the cartoons at FreeColorado.com, and I also wrote and cowrote articles defending Flemming Rose, who edited the paper at the time of the publications of the cartoons.

CNN quotes Westergaard's comments to the paper's web page: "Of course I fear for my life after the Danish Security and Intelligence Service informed me of the concrete plans of certain people to kill me. However, I have turned fear into anger and indignation. It has made me angry that a perfectly normal everyday activity which I used to do by the thousand was abused to set off such madness."

Thankfully, some people are starting to stand up to that madness.

Looking Good for Jesus

The AP reports:

SINGAPORE -- A cosmetics line that extolled the virtues of "Looking Good for Jesus" has been pulled from stores in Singapore after a number of complaints from shoppers, according to media reports Tuesday.

You can also view photos of the products. (The zippered change purse is perhaps the most outrageous; it says, "Be Not Worthy; Be Noticed; Show Him the Money.")

The AP reports that The Straits Times quoted several critics. Nick Chui said, "These products trivialize Jesus Christ and Christianity. There are also sexual innuendoes in the messages and the way Jesus is portrayed in these products." Grace Ong said, "Why would anyone use religious figures to promote vanity products? It's very disrespectful and distasteful."

However, I doubt that anyone would have grown too excited over Zeus's Zit Zap or Isis Eye Cream.

I wondered whether some American entrepreneur has made the products available. Sure enough. And here and here. And in the UK.

Of course, the churches that I've seen don't exactly discourage the use of makeup and other self-enhancement products, particularly at singles' groups. (Tammy Faye comes to mind.)

At least the Christians don't make death threats and go on destructive rampages when their prophet takes a little ribbing or serious criticism, the way that many followers of another popular religion do. Or would anyone dare to sell "Looking Good for Mohammed" on the streets of the Middle East or even in Paris, London, or Copenhagen?

Scientology Deserves Free Speech

As I have made clear, I believe that Scientology is a cult that deserves nothing but censure and ridicule. That is, Scientology deserves nothing else except to enjoy the basic rights due to every group and individual. Free speech means nothing unless we defend the right to speak by groups we detest.

I was therefore disturbed to read the following story in The Sydney Morning Herald:

Hackers declare Scientology D-day
Leo Shanahan
February 7, 2008 - 11:27AM

Anonymous internet users who have previously crashed Church of Scientology websites have named February 10 as a worldwide day of protest in a bid to "destroy" the controversial religion.

The group - called Anonymous - which includes skilled computer hackers, has posted a message on YouTube declaring war on Scientology, accusing it of trying to censor the internet and conducting "campaigns of misinformation".

The apparent catalyst for the attack was YouTube's decision to remove a video of Hollywood star Tom Cruise - one of Scientology's most high-profile recruits - espousing the religion's virtues after the church asked that it be pulled.

"Anonymous has therefore decided that your organisation should be destroyed, for the good of your followers, for the good of mankind, and for our own enjoyment," the statement says. ...

Last week several major Scientology websites crashed in the United States and Britain. The FBI was asked to investigate after envelopes of white powder were sent to 19 Scientology churches in the Los Angeles area. ...

I do not know the full details of the Cruise video. However, one page that continues to host the video speculates:

Yesterday, for a few hours, the clip of Tom Cruise discussing his beliefs as a Scientologist appeared on Youtube, and was republished by Radar and Defamer. That video is no longer available, most likely after the Church of Scientology sent in a copyright infringement notice.

I do not know if the Church of Scientology in fact holds the copyright to the video. Assuming that it does, for the sake of argument, censorship does not mean enforcing copyright. However, obviously Scientology cares nothing about the profitability of the video; the church is rightly worried that the video makes the church look ridiculous. As the cited poster of the video adds, "Gawker is now hosting a copy of the video; it's newsworthy; and we will not be removing it." This is a complicated matter of copyright law, then, but, offhand (and I may change my opinion about this) I'd say that Scientology is within its rights to ask that the video be removed and Gawker is within its rights to host the video anyway. Hosting the Cruise video is not comparable to (for example) hosting a film that is elsewhere for sale.

Scientology can more plausibly be accused of censorship in its use of vindictive litigation to silence critics. Scientology seems little interested in respecting the rights of free speech of others. However, the solution to this problem is to reform the litigation process to curb abuses. Two wrongs do not make a right, and silencing Scientology is not the appropriate remedy for Scientology's abuse of its critics. Scientology should be required to respect the rights of others, but beyond that the only legitimate way to counteract the organization is to criticize it in open debate.

People have the right to be Scientologists and to promote the ideology of the religion. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion demand that Scientologists be protected from those who would attempt to silence the religion. "First they came for the Scientologists..."

Bill of Rights Day

From the Colorado Freedom Report (originally published by Grand Junction Free Press:)

Amend your schedule to celebrate Bill of Rights Day

... Not everyone enjoys legal protections of their fundamental rights. Take, for instance, the story of Gillian Gibbons, a teacher from England who was working in Sudan. As The New York Times reported, Gibbons "was found guilty... of insulting Islam and sentenced to 15 days in jail and deportation. Under Sudanese law... Gibbons could have spent six months in jail and been lashed 40 times." ...

Unfortunately, our rights of free speech are eroding even here in the United States. The left, which often pretends to champion free speech and occasionally even does so, increasingly calls for censorship when it comes to radio broadcasts and political campaigns. Incredibly, the left calls its censorship "the Fairness Doctrine." By "fairness," the left means that government bureaucrats will force owners of radio stations to offer "equal time" to the left -- as defined by those bureaucrats -- or else. With the help of President Bush, the left has also censored select political speech prior to elections.

But the right wing is no better and very often worse. Some on the right wish to censor what it deems to be obscene or pornographic. (We're not talking about cases involving the abuse of children, which are not instances of free speech and which should be criminally prosecuted.) The problem is that when government bureaucrats and/or judges get to decide which naked pictures constitute art and which pornography, they cannot possibly issue objective rulings. Moreover, any censorship undermines the principle of free speech. If politicians and their bureaucratic thugs can forcibly stop you from looking at dirty pictures, why should they not also stop you from looking at dirty text? ...

(Read the entire article.)

Abolish the FCC

Alex Epstein recently wrote a fine article for the Ayn Rand Institute titled, "'Open Access' and the Tyranny of the FCC." Epstein argues:

In today's discussions of FCC policy, it is taken for granted that airwaves are "public." But it shouldn't be. As philosopher Ayn Rand argued in a landmark 1964 essay, "The Property Status of Airwaves," airwaves should be private property. ... Under the "public" airwaves regime, businesses do not own but merely "license" portions of spectrum--which the government has total authority to control in the "public interest."

Epstein explains that the government is going to license the 700 MHz spectrum with strings attached. He argues that Americans should "demand the abolition of the FCC."

The Rocky Mountain News recently discussed another way that the FCC violates free speech and property rights: it imposes "a dated legal prohibition on ownership of a newspaper and a television station in the same city by the same company or individual..." The News points out that the FCC is considering only trivial changes to this rule, and the rule may result in newspapers disappearing altogether in some communities.

Unfortunately, the News suggests that the rule was once valid, in the days before cable TV and the internet, but that now it should be repealed. But the rule was never valid. It was always a violation of the rights of free speech and property. The rule never should have been passed. The FCC never should have been given such power. And, by the way, how does the perverse doctrine that radio waves are public property justify the FCC's control of newspapers? Are those public property, too?

The religious right wants to ban whatever it deems pornographic. The left wants to politically control radio, television, newspapers, the internet, and political campaigns. Sometimes the left and the right defend those aspects of free speech that they find useful, but neither the left nor the right consistently defends free speech.

Subverting Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech

A few days ago I wrote the entry, "McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech." J. David McSwane, editor of Colorado State University's Rocky Mountain Collegian, published what I described as "a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial" -- "Taser this? F-- Bush," spelling out the F-bomb. (I've seen the punctuation between "this" and "F---" published three ways -- a question mark, ellipses, and a dash -- but that's an irrelevant detail.)

Unfortunately, various journalists and commentators continue to completely misunderstand the concept of free speech. Indeed, by setting up a false conception of "free speech," they are actively undermining real free speech.

Free speech, as I wrote in greater detail previously, means that you are free to say and write what you want, with your own resources, without suffering any force or threat of force from the government.

Free speech implies that you are free to start a newspaper and establish policy for that newspaper. It means that you are free to hire and fire writers at your discretion. If you are forcibly prevented from hiring and firing writers at your discretion, then your rights of free speech are being violated. If you choose to fire a writer, then you are certainly NOT violating the free-speech rights of that writer, who may continue to say and write whatever he or she wishes, only not with your resources.

There are three complications.

First, generally newspapers are owned by corporations. This just means that policy is set according to the legally established governors of the corporation (the voting stock holders acting through a management team).

Second, typically newspapers hire writers according to a contract. Most assuredly, newspapers do NOT offer contracts that allow writers to write whatever they want. If writers violate the terms of their contracts, then they may be fired before the contract (otherwise) expires.

Third, college newspapers are affiliated with tax-funded institutions, a condition that, as I discussed previously, generates all sorts of intractable problems, as the tax-funded advocacy of any idea automatically violates somebody's rights of free speech. Nevertheless, as I also discussed, this issue is irrelevant in the case of McSwane, because McSwane failed to uphold the clear, published policies of the paper that are in accordance with normal standards of professional journalism. The tax funding of colleges does not imply that all standards fly out the window.

With that context established, I'll take a look at a new article that was brought to my attention by a reader.

UCLA's Daily Bruin published an article on the matter today (October 8). The story is by Jessica Roy:

Since it ran, the [four-word] message has sparked a nationwide dialogue about freedom of speech and the rights of college newspapers.

“Even though I think that it was in bad taste, it’s certainly their right to go ahead and express whatever views it is that they have,” said Arthur Lechtholz-Zey, chief executive officer of L.O.G.I.C. (Liberty, Objectivity, Greed, Individualism and Capitalism), a UCLA student group associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, which promotes objectivism and the value of philosophy in general.

“Certainly I don’t think anybody should be punished for this,” he added.

The Board of Student Communications at Colorado State is an independent group that oversees the newspaper, which relies on advertising rather than student fees for its funding. ...

But Ryan Dunn, a third-year law student at UCLA, said he believes the paper overstepped the boundaries of freedom of speech and the press.

“I think there’s obviously a limit (to freedom of speech). They need to be aware of what their words can cause,” Dunn said. ...

Lechtholz-Zey said advertisers were well within their own freedom of speech rights to cancel any affiliation with the paper. ...

What the article reveals is that these American college students have no idea what is the significance or meaning of the First Amendment or the right of free speech.

It is debatable whether the CSU paper is truly "independent" or a part of the tax-funded institution. However, if it is "independent," then any possible First Amendment concern about firing McSwane evaporates.

I was most disappointed to read the comments of Lechtholz-Zey; Objectivists should know better. Lechtholz-Zey makes two errors. First, he confuses the paper's right to publish what it wants with the paper's right to fire McSwane. Second, he conflates getting fired with government-backed punishment. Only the latter actually violates First Amendment rights. At least Lechtholz-Zey gets it right when discussing the rights of advertisers.

But Dunn's comments are far worse. Dunn first suggests that firing McSwane would have somehow violated his rights of free speech. It would not have done so. More seriously, Dunn outright endorses the limitation of free speech. The right of free speech is absolute -- within its context. For example, prohibiting somebody from yelling "fire!" in a theater, when there is no fire, is no limitation of that person's rights of free speech. The person has no such right. Instead, the prohibition protects the theater owners' rights of property and expression. When people start talking about limiting free speech, then actual abuses of free speech are just around the corner.

What is frightening is that many of tomorrow's journalists and lawyers -- the people who should be most concerned with defending the First Amendment and the right of free speech -- have no idea of what rights are.

McSwane Is No Defender of Free Speech

It would be pleasant if more journalists actually understood the concept of free speech. J. David McSwane, the editor of Colorado State University's Rocky Mountain Collegian, obviously does not understand it.

As a late October 4 article by Erika Gonzalez in the Rocky Mountain News reviews, McSwane published an "editorial" on September 21 that stated "Taser this? F-- Bush," " with the expletive spelled out," Gonzalez notes. (While I reserve the right to publish swear words, I choose not to do so as a general matter of policy, which is not to say that I'll never make an exception.) That's it -- just four words.

If the story were only about a dumb college kid or swearing about Bush, I wouldn't care. (I've sworn about Bush plenty of times myself, though not in print.) But the important part of the story is much more important, as it gets to the heart of the First Amendment.

Gonzalez's story notes that a CSU board allowed McSwane to keep his job as editor. Here are the two relevant paragraphs from the article:

Although the board said it considered the opinion expressed in the editorial protected by the First Amendment, it also acknowledged the impact the piece has had. ...

"We did not do this to capture headlines," McSwane said last week. "We did this to spark a discussion about free speech".

Of course the editorial is protected by the First Amendment. Nobody is questioning that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether McSwane should have been fired for publishing it.

If McSwane cares to check, here's what the First Amendment actually states: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." A document by Cornell further explains:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. ... Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Article II, Section 10, of Colorado's Constitution reiterates this protection:

No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.

Has Congress passed a law censoring McSwane? Has any law been passed regarding the matter? Has any level of any government taken any action whatsoever regarding what McSwane can say or write?

No.

In fact, no one is trying to prevent McSwane from saying anything whatsoever. If he wants, he can start his own newspaper called Taser This? F-- Bush, "with the expletive spelled out." He can start a "F-- Bush" blog. He can run off flyers proclaiming "F-- Bush" and distribute them to willing takers (provided that he does not violate property rights in doing so). McSwane is perfectly free to wander the the sidewalks endlessly repeating "F-- Bush" if he wishes.

But whether any particular newspaper chooses to hire McSwane is simply not a matter of free speech or the First Amendment. There's just no connection. The fact that many professional journalists have failed to point out this simple fact does not change it.

Ayn Rand explains the matter with characteristic clarity:

Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government -- and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one's own antagonists. A "right" does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort. Private citizens cannot [legally] use physical force or coercion; they cannot censor or suppress anyone's views or publications. Only the government can do so. And censorship is a concept that pertains only to governmental action. (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, page 175)

For CSU's board even to mention the First Amendment in the context of McSwane keeping his job is bizarre. Apparently that board understands the First Amendment as well as McSwane does, which is to say not very well. (I wonder whether McSwane cried "free speech!" when Imus got fired.)

There is only one way in which free speech is at issue. If the state-subsidized college's newspaper is in any way subsidized by tax dollars, directly or indirectly, including related faculty salaries and costs of facilities, then McSwane's editorial violated the rights of free speech of those who were forced to subsidize it against their will. But this problem is inherent in any spending of tax dollars to advocate any idea or expression whatsoever.

And, arguably, when school administrators accept tax dollars, they effectively become agents of the government. Agents of government-funded institutions are subject to Constitutional limitations. So if administrators of a tax-subsidized college try to limit a student's expression using tax-subsidized facilities, that may indeed raise First Amendment concerns. But does that mean, for example, that a student could parade around in class screaming "F- Bush?" Obviously not. The problem with any tax-subsidized expression of ideas is that it necessarily violates somebody's rights of free speech. Within the context of tax-subsidized speech, the problem is intractable. (An article by David Hudson illustrates the difficulties of defining rights of expression in the context of tax-subsidized institutions.) The only solution -- the only way to consistently protect free speech -- is to stop funding schools via the forcible redistribution of resources. A fuller examination of this particular matter would take us rather far afield. For our purposes, I need merely point out that firing McSwane for publishing a four-word, nonsensical, profane utterance in place of an actual editorial would not pose any serious First Amendment challenge. Otherwise, one might as well argue that students have the protected right not to be "censored" with low marks if they squawk like chickens in response to oral examinations. I mean, let's get serious.

It is no coincidence that some of the same people who invoke the First Amendment in cases where it doesn't apply also advocate laws that clearly violate the First Amendment. (I am not writing of McSwane here, as I don't know what his views are.) The "Fairness Doctrine," more accurately called the Censorship Doctrine, is an obvious example. Campaign laws that outlaw select political speech are another.

But let us leave the matter of free speech and consider whether McSwane should have been fired. Part of me thinks that he's just a stupid college kid who pulled off a stupid college prank and found himself in the national spotlight, so who cares. God knows I did far stupider things while in college. But, quite obviously, if he wrote such an editorial for any real newspaper in the country, he'd be immediately kicked out the door. I frankly don't care whether he edits a podunk paper that hardly anybody reads. But if he imagines that his treatment at CSU is remotely similar to what he'll face in the real world, then CSU is doing McSwane quite a disservice.

Here's a fun side-note: I went to Westword.com and searched for "f--" ("with the expletive spelled out"). I got 1,000 results. To read my own defense of the right to use the "f word," see my article of 2003.