Obama’s State Department (of Relativism): For Free Speech and Against It in Same Sentence
Here’s a tough problem they didn’t teach at Government Spokesman Preparatory School. Within a few hours of the president’s signing of a press freedom bill — with much pomp about his love for the liberty of the media, ironically followed by a refusal to take questions from real live reporters — State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked this:
Do you have any comment on Pakistan’s blockage of … YouTube and other Internet sites?
Pakistan had just made the decision to block certain sites because some carried pictures of Muhammad. How would P.J. Crowley respond? Fortunately, the State Department prepared a statement for him:
Obviously, this is a difficult and challenging issue. Many of the images that appear today on Facebook were deeply offensive to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We are deeply concerned about any deliberate attempt to offend Muslims or members of any other religious groups. We do not condone offensive speech that can incite violence or hatred.
…
We also believe that the best answer to offensive speech is dialogue and debate, and in fact, we see signs that that is exactly what is occurring in Pakistan. Governments have a responsibility to protect freedom of expression and the free flow of information.
The best antidote to intolerance is not banning or punishing offensive speech, but rather a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, and proactive government outreach to minority religious groups and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.
…
We respect any actions that need to be taken under Pakistani law to protect their citizens from offensive speech. At the same time, Pakistan has to make sure that in taking any particular action, that you’re not restricting speech to the millions and millions of people who are connected to the internet and have a universal right to the free flow of information.
Crowley’s response tries to balance freedom of speech with political correctness, plus the administration’s policy. Granted, his situation wasn’t easy and he was trying to give a reasonable response (much more so than the snippets appearing in some media make it seem). But what Crowley seems to be saying is that Pakistan has the right to censor the Internet, but that shouldn’t interfere with others having the ability to use it.
And then he hedges on that hedge.
For example, should a picture of Muhammad be “deeply offensive” to non-Muslims? Why? Assuming they wish to show Islam respect, it is in no way against their custom to have such pictures. And, if it is deeply offensive … is that a bad thing?
After all, since everyone knows that saying certain things — sometimes even quoting Muslim texts — is “offensive to Muslims,” those exercising free speech can be said to be engaging in a “deliberate attempt to offend Muslims.”
So when Crowley says that the U.S. government takes a position on saying certain things, isn’t that unwarranted and unprecedented interference with Americans’ right to free speech? And where is the line between “offensive speech” that someone knows in advance will be “offensive” and a hate crime? Indeed, how can anyone even maintain that under the U.S. Constitution there can even be such a thing as a verbal hate crime unconnected with an actual criminal act (assault, murder, arson, vandalism, etc.)?
While each religion can choose to define what deeply offends it, why should it expect everyone else to accept that definition? If that happens, the religion in question (which today generally means only Islam) is thus granted veto power over what everyone else does. And that’s dangerous.
It’s outrageous for Crowley to characterize what is occurring in Pakistan as being “dialogue and debate.” This is a country where Christians are persecuted and murdered (with no Western protest), where members of the Ahmadi sect are discriminated against, and that is a world center of anti-Semitism. Pakistani Christians are often beaten or murdered based on allegations that they have done something “offensive” regarding Islam.
Great catch, Obama is really becoming a train wreck while trying to uphold his “realist” For.Policy. I don’t understand how the mainstream media misses this stuff.
It’s easy to miss what you aren’t looking for.
When you are being guided by babbling idiots, even the guided sound like idiots.
Is there a prize for speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time? If so, P.J. Crowley ought to get at least one for that wishy-washy defense of free speech. A better response: “In the U.S., we have a long tradition of free speech, backed by a constitutional provision guarantying the right to speak freely on any subject. In other countries, including some of our allies, free speech is not honored in the same way. We support freedom but cannot impose our beliefs and values on other governments, which also have strong religious and cultural beliefs that weigh heavily against the type of full freedom of speech Americans enjoy.”
The people who were/are exonerated after years on death row for a crime they did not commit surely found the words “you are under arrest” and “guilty” to be offensive hate speech and against their religious principles of “putting the innocent in prison”!
So we need to shut down the courts and police so they do not continue to offend innocent people with hate speech “you are under arrest”/ “guilty”
And Islime offends me and my religious beliefs by forcing women to wear burqas et al.
And Islime offends me and my religious beliefs with honor killing!
And Islime offends me with its war on free speech to criticize Islime and/or draw cartoons on any issue/individual!
Islime offends me and my religious beliefs with jihad and the lack of complete and universal protest by Muslims against it/ (except the duplicitous)
Obama: “the bigger the despot, the deeper the bow”
“[H]ow can anyone even maintain that under the U.S. Constitution there can even be such a thing as a verbal hate crime unconnected with an actual criminal act . . .?”
Well, there isn’t, by one interpretation, though there is. The hate crimes industry (which wields tremendous, inappropriate, and unique authority over actual law enforcement and the courts on these issues) has solved that problem by claiming all “pure speech” acts to be prosecuted as “hate” are technically classified as intimidation, which is the “crime” aspect of the charge.
Not that these instances are actually charged and prosecuted as crimes very often, or at all. Actually prosecuting these cases WOULD raise the impression of punishing speech, so they just don’t bother — not really all that worried about the offenders, are they? For example, New York State sent nearly 600 “incident reports” to the federal statistics and ended up with ten hate crime convictions (after only 98 dispositions).
The reported incidents are, however, recorded in the all-important federal statistics, which are an utter fabrication because they include these mostly unsubstantiated charges for acts that otherwise would not be counted as crimes (completely unlike other data collected on crime). These charges are called “incidents,” yet elsewhere in the official FBI registry they are then lumped in with “crimes.” In 2008, for example, nearly 1/3 of all reported “hate crimes” were “incidents” of verbal “intimidation.” I challenge anyone to find the prosecutions, or actual investigations tied to these urgent “hate crimes.” Another 19% of “hate incidents/crimes” were “simple assault,” again, mainly name calling, or slight pushing at most, for everything else falls under aggravated assault. So fully 50% of all of those trumpeted rising tide of hate “hate crimes” in 2008 were actually pure speech acts — or schoolyard bumping, or something like that. Another 32% were vandalism, virtually all of it also just name-calling with spraypaint, hurtful as such speech may be. And fully 17% were that weird hate category that includes hate-burglary, hate carjacking, hate theft…you get the point. This is all from the 7.7K or so “hate crimes” the vast activist network was able to come up with — not very much, when you consider actual crime statistics, and the actual harm and losses they reflect (serious incidents classified as hate are tragic. But they’re also no different, or more tragic, than other violent crimes).
So it’s worse than you think. The entire notion that “hate crimes” are a phenomenon that we must punish more severely than other identical crimes IS an act of singling out and criminalizing certain speech or thought (or alleged thought, for in any case of the more severe crimes called hate, the notion that the offender’s motives are both easily classified and pure and worse than other motives for assault, rape or murder is awfully hard to prove).
So both philosophically and in practice, our laws are as much about criminalizing speech as the European and Canadian versions. The activists just pick and choose fights, make up special categories not used elsewhere in law enforcement and crime statistics (intimidation, incident), and point to past incidents of actual racial oppression to defend these laws against the First Amendment. And the civil libertarians yield to them – something they notably wouldn’t do even when it comes to extremely distasteful acts like defending the Klan. Pretty pathetic behavior all around — and nobody dares to utter a peep about it. What happens to people in other countries in “speech tribunals” simply happens through different pressures or classifications here.
I’ve spoken with state-level statistics-gathering officials around the country. Some are quite cynical (off the record, of course) about these “incident reports” — especially in cases where excitable university activists are the ones pumping up the numbers (yes, the data is also collected from campuses as jurisdictions — you can well imagine the outcome).
…claiming all “pure speech” acts to be prosecuted as “hate” are technically classified as intimidation, which is the “crime” aspect of the charge…For example, New York State sent nearly 600 “incident reports” to the federal statistics and ended up with ten hate crime convictions (after only 98 dispositions)
NY charged the guy who flushed the Koran under its “hate crimes” statutes. Maybe the case never went anywhere, but, still, it is an imposition for the accused, and each charge is another nail in the coffin of freedom of expression.
All of this kind of stuff leads to a “what can I say/do ? What can’t I say?” kind of paranoia, which is precisely what the promoters of “hate crimes” legislation are seeking.
They’re command and control sorts of people, regulators & socialists, to the core. Freedom is their enemy.
The activists just pick and choose fights, make up special categories not used elsewhere in law enforcement and crime statistics (intimidation, incident)…
Given the “success” Islamists have had diluting law enforcement in Britain and hassling magazines & individuals in Canada (e.g., Macleans, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn), given their efforts to inhibit freedom of expression/speech around the world (not just in Pakistan but in Canada, Australia, the US & throughout Europe), the notion of actively insulting these types of individuals, in real time, is increasingly attractive.
“Maybe the case never went anywhere, but….”
The individual charged with this so-called hate crime had their life turned upside down. The time and financial expense may have ruined them. It’s nice to ultimately be found innocent—but the costs associated with the ordeal are not pleasant. Others learning about the case will inevitably restrict their own speech in the future.
Absolutely true. The fact that few of these incidents are prosecuted doesn’t make the threat of prosecution — or other extralegal consequences — less troubling.
The system as it stands enables activists to grandstand without having to defend their position in court — where the prosecution of people for name-calling would be subjected to scrutiny and oversight.
There are none so blind as will not see. That certainly includes just about the totality of our MSM. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize others and their beliefs. If my laughter provokes your outrage, go suck a lemon. Among the other freedoms I claim is the one which says I am free not to agree with nor accept your religion. You, as a Muslim, Catholic, Jew, Hindi, Buddhist, or whatever, have no right to object to my characterization of your religion or set of beliefs, nor the right to physically attack me for my position. Certainly if you are a Muslim you believe you have every right, even a duty, to attack my religion. I allow that, but claim the same right against or inspite of you.
Suggested Reading:
1 Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
2 1st Amendment
3 Charter of United Nations
4 United Nations Participation Act
By joining the United Nations a nation agrees to conform its laws to those of the United Nations (see Charter). The US has done that (see participation act )
a number of issues seem to be exceptions to the 1st Amendment. the great class is is issuing a false alarm, e.g. yelling fire in a theatre — or perhaps filing a false police report
another example is slander
another example is child pornography
another is conspiracy to commit a crime
and now we are debating “hate speech” and blah-blah don’t know what he wants — just generally speech that has a bad affect on democracy…
remember: the 1st Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law abridging freedom of the press or of speech
it doesn’t say anything about laws criminalizing false alarms, slander, dog fighting or what have you
but when you look at these questions it is important to be sure that we are addressing an under-lying crime — rather than freedom of speech
the Campaign Finance Reform act was clearly off base in attempting to suppress political commentary prior to an election
and the court rightly corrected it although by only 5-4 which should be a considerable cause of concern
the 4 justices who voted in dissent should be impeached for failure to uphold their oath of office
The U.S. State Department has proclaimed, in the name of the American government and people, that it is right to restrict “offensive speech.”…the Pakistani model will be more and more inculcated into Western societies.
Barack Obama and his fellow socialists would dearly love to control free speech and free access in the exact manner as Pakistan.
At a bare minimum, this President, obsessed with his critics, seeks a similar “veto power” in striving for a fairness doctrine, net neutrality and the like.
The official name of the act you reference, is the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.
Obama’s comments at the signing were typically mookish, offensive, even
How ’bout we censor Obama?
We all know by now that when Islam enters the room all the rules of proper, decent, and ethical behavior go out the door.
What gives Islam this veto power, and why do normally clear thinking Westerners put up with it?
Orwell had the line on these political birds before Crowley was born. To choose politics and government as a career today is to choose to appear to be a circus clown. Too bad.
There are two major reasons:
1.) A secularist culture is inherently cowardly. The morbid fear of death renders it incapable of defending itself. Any effective response to Islamic extremism will require physical risk.
2.) White race guilt. Whites have for decades been told by Susan Sontag and other postmodernist figures that whites are a cancer on the Earth. They have no right to criticize their dark skinned victims. The latter are owed big time for past injustices.
For left/liberals it’s not free speech but saying you have it that’s a good thing, especially when you’re telling people that includes censoring “islamophobia” or anything muslims don’t like or might riot about because that’s actually a good thing. Life is sure complicated without principles, isn’t it?
Are statues of Jesus offensive to Muslims?
GOD!! I hope so!!!!
We’ve elected spineless, incompetent, unaccountable cowards to pull our national strings, it’s no ones fault but our own.
Any attempts to alter, enforce, even redefine one of the amendments to our constitution are only as valid as The People will allow. Without universal, or even majority acceptance, pushing a socialist, communist, totalitarian, etc. agenda will, in time, lead to discontent, uprising, outright revolt in a true Constitutional Republic. That being said, how many of us are willing to step up and protest, even to the point of prison,(any martyrs out there?) as their friends and neighbors meekly stand and watch?
My question; At what point will our nations’ charter principals be trashed enough to finally Pi$$ us, ALL OF US, the F’ off?
BTW, On the bright side,I’m truly reassured,and made proud,by the patriotism and drive of our Tea Party movement. It just genuinely amazes(and disgusts)me that so many of our fellow ‘Americans’ have lost all heart and pride in being blessed as such. God save our children.
By banning speech that “incites violence” the government creates an incentive for violence. Specifically any group, by behaving violently in response to certain ideas it opposes, can convert expression of those ideas from the legal category to the forbidden category.
How should the “2 minutes hate” rants of Keith Olbermann be categorized?
Oh, I forgot, it’s OK when THEY do it: “intellectuals” are cut loose from any rational moorings.
Religious veto power over civil speech in the form of a hate crime divorced from actual physical conduct–an actual assault—, hum, doesn’t that violate the no establishment of religions principle in the constitution?
Is the State Department going to bat for people that are called the epithet of kaffir? Are they going to condemn criticism of and art disrespectful to Christianity?
Somehow I dont think so.
Obviously these morons are dumber than a 5th grader- every kindergarten child knows
“sticks and stones may break my bones but WORDS can never harm me”
Oblowhard & friends are full of ….
If we relent in the slightest degree from mockery and execration of every aspect of Islam that runs counter to our values then we deserve to lose them and we will.
I most humbly submit that a clear and convincing case can be made that Islime is a religion of war and intimidation and the antithesis of a religion of peace; That Mohammad wrote clearly that the non-believer has no rights. Those women are essentially chattel.
Are we to understand that the truth is offensive and provocative?
Islime is a political entity committed to war and the over through of western civilization, but it is now illegal to say so?
I think the founding fathers would find that provocative and hostile to the constitution they wrote.
Hey buddy, listen up. In Islam, ANY depictions of Mohamed are right out.
“Are we to understand that the truth is offensive and provocative?”
Yes, that is the plan.
“daddy, did you plug up the hole yet?” puke.
We all saw how “deeply concerned” this administration was about offending religious groups, when Obama stereotyped the rural Christian half of America as bitter clingers to guns and religion.
The resolution to religious intolerance is not actually Obama’s plan to polarize the world into politically correct religious targets vs. politically empowered religious bigots, but the realization that respect for any religion belongs exclusively in a place of worship, not in politics. It is only when the world’s idiot leaders insist on politically compelling religious respect _in the public arena_, that an otherwise harmless religious diversity is encouraged into intolerance and oppression. As Flemming Rose, editor of the Muslim cartoon printing Danish Jyllands-Posten said, “if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.”