Robert Spencer: 2013: The Death of Free Speech


This could never happen here. Could it? Here is my piece in PJ Media today:

It is
February 27, 2013. Barack Obama, having been safely reelected, awakens
one morning to news that Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia,
Egypt, and elsewhere are rioting and storming U.S. embassies, tearing
down the American flag and raising the black flag of jihad.

February 27 was the date of the Reichstag Fire in 1933.

They”re in a
rage over a book that depicts Muhammad as waging war against his
enemies, consummating a marriage with a nine-year-old girl when in his
fifties, and raining down curses upon Jews, Christians, and others.

Islamic texts accepted by mainstream Muslims show Muhammad doing all these things.

grim-faced Obama immediately takes to the airwaves.

“This book is reprehensible and disgusting,” Obama tells the world,
his eyes flashing with indignation. “It does not represent the position
of the government of the United States, and we condemn it in the
strongest possible terms. This unseemly provocation of the noble
believers in the Holy Qur’an has to end. This is America. We are better
than this. We are not a people who condone hate. We are a people who
offer a welcoming, helping hand to those in need. And it is high time
that we afford religious minorities the same protections that we strive
so hard to offer to racial minorities.”

The Obama administration quickly drafts a law that would criminalize
the “use of any means to broadcast, write, produce, publish or
distribute material that encourages or incites terrorism, including a
website and public speaking, and of material that incites hatred that is
likely to lead to violence against or stigmatization of a specific

I adapted the text of this law from an actual law that is currently being considered in Canada, that would bar people from entering the country if they were deemed to be engaged in the activities enumerated.

The international community is thrilled. European heads of state rush
to congratulate and thank Obama. British Prime Minister David Cameron
calls him “far-seeing.” Germany”s Angela Merkel says he is “a true
statesman.” Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte opines that Obama is “richly
deserving of his Nobel Peace Prize,” and predicts that a new era of
peace will soon dawn between the West and the Islamic world. Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC), announces that he is “gratified” that the United States has
finally recognized the “red lines that cannot be crossed regarding discussion of the holy figures of the world’s great religions.”

The mainstream media is just as happy. Eric Posner writes in Slate
that finally Americans have come around to the rest of the world’s
point of view, that there is “no sense in the First Amendment” and that
we need not be “paralyzed by constitutional symbolism.” Sarah Chayes in the Los Angeles Times
hails the new clarity about the “distinction between speech that is
simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives
and property at immediate risk.” In the Washington Post, Nathan Lean effuses
that the U.S. has “recognized the power of our multiculturalism” and
will finally “reach our true potential as a nation” now that “the voices
of intolerance that wish to divide us along religious lines” have been
“drowned out by overwhelming calls for pluralism and co-existence.”

Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. are enthusiastic as well. Haris Tarin of the Muslim Public Affairs Council heralds the imminent demise
of the “hate-mongering industry in the United States that sees Islam as
the problem.” Imam Husham Al-Husainy of the Karbalaa Islamic
Educational Center in Dearborn expresses his satisfaction
that the U.S. has finally “put a law not to insult a spiritual leader.”
Mohammad Qatanani of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, New Jersey, is likewise pleased that “we, as Americans, have put limits and borders on freedom of speech,” recognizing that non-Muslims “have no right to talk about Muslim holy issues,” as doing so will incite “hatred or war among people.”

As you can see from the links, these are all real quotes or close adaptations of real quotes from “journalists” and Muslim leaders who recently called for restrictions on the freedom of speech.

A few roadblocks still remain on the road to peace. Some radio hosts
object, but local stations drop their programs for fear of losing their
advertisers and FCC licenses. A teary-eyed House Minority Leader John
Boehner says at a press conference: “Look, I agree with the president
that the Muhammad book is reprehensible and disgusting, and I don’t
condone hate speech in any way, shape, or form, but I am concerned about
the First Amendment implications of this new bill.” After a firestorm
in the press, however, charging that Boehner and the Republicans favor
hate speech and are sowing division among people, Boehner backs down and
agrees to support the bill. A Supreme Court challenge is quickly
defeated when Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Sunstein lead a 6-3
majority vote in favor of the proposition that “hate speech” is not
entitled to First Amendment protections and can lawfully be subject to

The change is immediate. Books critical of Islam and Muhammad
disappear from the shelves. Websites tracking jihad terror activity are
shut down, and, after vowing to continue to call attention to
Islamization and the spread of Sharia in the West, a few bloggers are
quietly imprisoned. The mainstream media is unperturbed — these people
were, after all, purveyors of “hate speech.”

But when Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli is
taken into custody over a story reporting on new statements calling for
jihad by the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, Post publisher Katharine Weymouth is outraged. “The story,” she writes in a front-page Post
editorial, “was merely reporting on Mullah Omar’s words. If there was
any incitement to hatred, it was on the part of Omar, not the Post.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney, however, explains: “The
president feels that this kind of reporting can tend to stigmatize and
increase suspicion of the Muslim community in the United States. The Post, and the rest of the media, has to learn to be more inclusive.”

There is more.

European Union says freedom of expression means freedom to "offend, shock or disturb" -- unless subject is Islam
Did Obama write anti-Semitic poetry?
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    That would make a good script for a movie…

    It’s another good reason not to reelect Rasool Obama…I don’t think Mitt would go along with surrendering our freedom to Islam, or Islam friendly traitors…

  2. says

    “I’ll give you my First Amendment to the constitution when you pry it from my cold, dead hands”

    The first amendment is the most precious of all amendments to the constitution and millions have died preserving it, that is why it is “the first amendment”!

    It is the mortar that holds our nations foundations together. Without it we lose are way in a troubled World that pleads, and cries for freedom and liberty.

    Anyone who thinks or believes otherwise is a DAM FOOL!!!

  3. says

    The only reason why this is remotely humorous is because it hasn’t happened yet.

    Robert is right, however. We are heading down this path, and we wont be laughing.

    One can make Jesus Christ and a crucifix out off urine and feces, calling it “Piss Christ” and that’s OK.

    One can burn the American flag, deface a picture of the capital by replacing the US Flag with a Jihad flag. And that’s OK

    One can hold rallies and say “Death to america! Islam will soon dominate” And that’s OK.

    But simply say “Islam seems too violent” or “Mohammad was a pedophile”, and that is a HATE crime and one can be jailed.

    I watched National Treasure last night. The constitution, our rights, our freedom, our great Forefathers. No one talks like that anymore.

    It seems as though nowadays we have taken a step backwards – a whole century’s worth.

    Hats off to Robert, Pam, and others who fight to keep our freedoms alive!

  4. says

    People both in the private sector and in local government are already terrified of the use and abuse of federal anti-discrimination laws that represent the economic equivalent of the death penalty. Any utterance more strident than absolute ambivalence toward or supportive of belligerents can trigger the legal wheels and a slow but certain economic death.

    Anyone with a family to feed is thus already required to reach some level of commitment beyond their own personal fate when they decide to put up more than a supine resistance to an aggressive displacement immigration policy. A soldier abroad can plausibly argue that their family at home is safe and mostly indistinguishable from the entire population and that they are only individually in harms way. You and I do not benefit from this perceived distance and are typically frozen in fear, by the weight of federal government animus . . . today.

    Not everybody has the necessary professional training to even ponder a plausibly successful defense, and even then it could dominate life for 2 years or more and leave a legal stain for life.

    The evidentiary value of one single comment on JihadWatch — by reason of labeling by hate groups like CAIR and Sharia Insistent Compliant (SIC) Media — can be the difference between freedom to live free another day versus financial ruin.

  5. says

    It’s the stuff of nightmares and could be the future. Will it usher in the worldwide reign of ‘the Beast’?

    To paraphrase Revelation 13:16

    “He (the Mahdi)also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark (of Islam) on his right hand or his forehead, so that no one (dhimmi) could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast (Allah) or the number of his name.”

    Just a thought.

  6. says

    i hope this satirical piece remains so.

    If America falls, there’s no hope for freedom-lovers.

    Entire world is looking up to America.

    wish Americans vote wisely.

  7. says

    The problem with the scenario is that a law like that being considered in Canada does not apply to factual reporting and discussion. Nothing that Robert Spencer does can be considered anything like encouraging and inciting terrorism. Nor does he do anything which incites criminal activity or publicly “promote or glorify” terrorist violence or terrorist organizations.

    However, those who do such things that would be in infringement of the law are nearly always Islamic supremacists. Sure, the odd wingnut like Pastor Terry Jones and his Bible thumping, Koran burning hysteria and tent show theatrics gets stopped at the border. But then so would all the Islamic supremacists who travel to speak at the request of leftist idiots and at terror promoting mosques and at subversive and deceptive University campus talks. Robert Spencer would not and could not be stopped — not for long if he would be by misunderstanding — as he is doing nothing that is prohibited by the law, and can prove as much.

    Unless I’ve got this wrong and Robert Spencer isn’t simply telling the truth, exposing facts, exposing liars, and encouraging legitimate education based on evidence — all sprinkled with some humor and satire? But of course he is, and I don’t have it wrong.

  8. says

    Ps: has anyone seen the video add for Obama by MOVE where a nursing home woman threaten to “burn this********” place down if Obama is NOT reelected? Another threatens to punch MITT in the ****** if he(Rommney is elected).
    The intimidation by leftist thugs has already started, and Obama says NOTHING. God help us if the Obamation that is in the white house is reelected.

  9. says

    I saw Mitt R speaking on Sky yesterday. First time I’ve seen the guy. If I were an American voter he would get my vote. . .with one proviso : that I could give him a couple of southpaw jabs to sort out his starboard lip.

  10. says

    Just imagine the picture of the Statue of Liberty wearing a Niqab, with Obama. below, against the background of an American Flag with the stars on it replaced by a crescent, addressing a crowd of Islamic “Peace Activists” some wearing explosive Suicide Bombing vests, and amongst them in Orange uniform, the “Prisoner of Conscience” Nidal Malik Hassan of Fort Hood fame.

    And Obama states as follows:

    “My fellow Muslim Brothers: Yes we can, Yes we can!”

    If you are an American voter, it it within your power to hasten an bring about this transformation. Just vote Obama.

    Alternatively, just vote ABO (Anyone but Obama).

    Romney may have his shortcomings, but he is a far better an alternative.

  11. says

    Re: “Hate Speech:”

    True “hate” is only the natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam)!

    Without “hate,” no one would ever bother to accuse any criminals of their crimes, and by doing so, end those crimes!

    When they pretend to want to make HATE CRIMES “illegal,” they really only try to make it illegal to HATE CRIMES!

    So now we get nonsense such as this:

    “Dear Peons: It is now “illegal” to accuse any (moslem) criminals of their crimes, if doing so might hurt their feelings and so offend them into “having” to commit even more crimes! Whee!”

    -Hillary Clinton-

    Well, I’m not afraid to say in public, that Yes, I DO hate crimes!

    And, of course, here’s the *real* HATE-CRIME:

    Holy mobster Moslems only hate infidels because the Qur’an says “god” orders them to – Period. Islam is a threat to everyone because IT says it is.

    All moslems are criminals because, by their own rules, they must endorse in public every word in the Qur’an.

    And the Qur’an tells them that they are so “superior” to all non-moslem humans, that it’s not only their right, but also their holy duty to their god, to extort, enslave, and murder all the non-moslems in the world, simply for the “crime” of not being moslems.

    So the Qur’an is a clearly-written, us-versus-them hate-crime book, endorsing a permanent might-makes-right death-threat.

    Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:

    “I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”


    Muhammad was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!

    So, islam is not a “religion” (at all, much less one “of peace”) nor is it a “race” (at all, much less one of “Poor, Oppressed, People Of Colour”)!

    Obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

    “God told us to commit these crimes!”



    BAN ISLAM – because everything moslems pretend to consider “holy” is already a hateful crime!


  12. says

    I left this comment on a Front Page article on the Benghazi “investigation” being overseen by Mr. Pickering, who suggests that criticism of Islam ought to be made a crime.

    Dear Mr. Pickering: Here are the premises that underlie my “Islamophobia.” Qua religion, Islam is evil. Qua ideology (and Islam is nothing if not an ideology), Islam is totalitarian. I am prejudiced against Muslims, even “moderate” ones who wouldn’t hurt a fly, because I do not suffer fools. If “moderate” Muslims do not bother to examine their religion/ideology to see what is in it and what are the consequences of its unilateral application, that’s not my problem. I shall remain hostile to Muslims, American-born or not, and give them the cold shoulder. Any person who submits to a wholly irrational and degrading “moral” system is my enemy. So, Mr. Pickering, deal with it.

  13. says

    “The opinion which it is attempted by Authority to suppress, may possibly be true. Those who would suppress it, of course, deny its truth, but they are not infallible.

    John Stuart Mill

  14. says

    I totally agree with you. Obama, on the surface seems so gentle and kind, but I think he has a ruthless side and may be used by the ruler of this dark world to begin the descent into the reign of the antiChrist, who ever that may be.

  15. says

    I have never thought Obama looked gentle and kind. Never for a moment. Right from the start, he looked smug, arrogant and self-obsessed, fully confident in his ability to charm suckers. I couldn’t even see his famed “way with words”. I mean, “yes we can”? He doesn’t even seem fond of his wife, kids or dog.

  16. says

    Skeen66; Oh my God I went to your posting and couldn’t beleive the idiot thomas pickering. The only way this mans thought process can be formulated is that it’s from a brain of a incestial being. I thought others like susstien were fruit cakes, but this clown,oohhh wait this must be susstiens dad brother cousin right ?
    This aritcle should be posted on every site, maybe Jamie Glasov can get this clown and interview him: sorry Jamie.

    My brain is still smoking from reading this idiots statement’s.