As I predicted in this piece at FrontPage, the calls for limitations on the freedom of speech have already begun.
Islamic jihad gunmen have murdered twelve people in the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. One of the jihad murderers in Paris shouted, “We have avenged the prophet Muhammad,” making it abundantly clear that this was a jihad attack and a response to Charlie Hebdo’s daring to mock Muhammad.
It is virtually certain that the mainstream media response to this heinous mass murder will be calls for the West to restrict its freedom of expression, and not publish material that offends Muslims. If you think that is unlikely, remember that it has happened before. When the Obama Administration blamed the Benghazi jihad attack on a video about Muhammad, there were calls in the mainstream media for restrictions on the freedom of speech. Eric Posner in Slate derided the First Amendment’s “sacred status” and declared that “Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.”
In the Los Angeles Times, Sarah Chayes noted that “the current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence — was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.” She then argued at length that the Muhammad video did indeed have the likelihood of inciting imminent violence, and should thus be banned. Her article was a sleazy and dishonest sleight of hand, as the law is that speech that calls for violence can be banned, whereas she was arguing that speech that doesn’t call for violence, but that might make people who oppose it behave violently, should be banned. That would be to enshrine the heckler’s veto into law and to enable Islamic jihadis to silence anyone they disliked simply by killing someone.
And in the Washington Post, the gutter thug Nathan Lean (who has repeatedly published on Twitter what he thinks is my home address and places I frequent, in a transparent attempt to endanger me and those around me, and/or to frighten me into silence) declared: “The voices of hate that hope to fracture our society along religious lines should have no place in our public discourse.” Who would decide which are the “voices of hate” that should be silenced? People like Nathan Lean, of course – that is, purveyors of the “Islamophobia” myth who are determined to silence anyone and everyone who dares raise the slightest objection to the advancing jihad.
Now, as twelve people have been gunned down by Islamic jihadists in Paris, we will hear more such calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech. The likes of Posner, Chayes, and Lean will blame Charlie Hebdo and call on Western media to adopt Sharia blasphemy laws, and refrain from saying or doing anything that Muslims would find offensive — including, of course, honest discussion about how Islamic jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify things like the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
This is the time to say, “Enough.” This is the time to say, We are going to stand for the freedom of speech. No more people are going to die for saying things that offend Muslims. The capacity to be offended and not respond with violence is essential to a pluralistic society, and the freedom of speech itself is our foremost protection against tyranny that would do whatever it willed and crush all dissent.
It is time to stand, or free speech will be lost, and when it is lost, all will be lost.
joeb says
In the UK, the quisling dhimmis have been working the airwaves overtime, which was expected of them:
“free speech is all well and good, but if it leads to attacks like this, maybe we should think about laws to limit it?”
I also saw a guest commentator suggesting that Europe should tighten up its gun laws, then incidents like this wouldn’t happen. Simply staggering…
Salah says
“Europe should tighten up its gun laws”
Gun controls advocates are enabling the enemy, THEY are our real enemies.
apollospeaks says
FOR AVENGING THE DEATHS OF THE CHARLIE HEBDO TEN
Click http://www.apollospeaks.com
John Alexander says
Standing around in squares in solemn protest is all very well but…
There’s is really only one thing to do.
And everybody knows what that is.
Reprint the Mohammad cartoons in every publication and website that says it believes in freedom of speech. The editor can even add a rider that he doesn’t personally like the tone of the pictures.
Shame those who won’t do it till they do.
There’s a great post on this dream called “I Have to Tell You Now” at:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/01/i-have-to-tell-you-now.html
Angemon says
John Alexander posted:
“There’s is really only one thing to do.
And everybody knows what that is.
Reprint the Mohammad cartoons in every publication and website that says it believes in freedom of speech.”
Indeed. And that’s precisely what most MSM are not doing.
PatnCats says
Yes, see “Draw Mohammed Day” which is May 20th of each year. The blog was there a few weeks ago – along with one of my drawings.
cronk says
I agree with Robert, but that is not how the establishment or MSM views this. Watching FoxNews today, I was struck how the interviewers and those interviewed(usually security types) studiously avoided the word “Islam” and it’s connections to the attacks.
It’s always TMOE with them at best.
They act like ISIS and Al-Qeada are not part of Islam.
Sadly the only one in the MSM making the Isalmic connection is Bill Maher. For everyone else Islam has become the new “lord Voldemort” the name that shall not be mentioned.
Matthieu Baudin says
Thanks Cronk. Self censorship really is insidious. But perhaps the cracks are starting to appear and people will break ranks. Your credit to Bill Maher is particularly nice. Americans should make an effort to break out of their current political polarization and give credit where it’s due; in this case to someone who identifies with liberal values that may not appeal to many or most of Jihad Watch readers.
boakai ngombu says
“The voices of hate that hope to fracture our society along religious lines should have no place in our public discourse.” (N. Lean)
dear nate:
voices of truth will fracture PC society along many lines, let alone religious lines, and are valuable to public discourse.
perhaps you’ve not hear Apostle Paul: (ESV, Ephesians 5: 6) “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” and the admonition in v11: “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them …”
Dave J says
Time for an ultimatum to Muslims: If you cannot control your extremist faction (or even condemn them), then you have to leave our countries. All of you, because these are crimes, performed by criminals and you are their accomplices.
thomas pellow says
“Viewpoint: The roots of the battle for free speech”
By Tom Holland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30714702
BW022 says
Unfortunately, the time to stand for free speech was during the Rushdie book, then the Danish cartoons, and dozens of other times. The mainstream media has proven itself to be unable to stand then… so there is absolutely no reason why they would take a stand now.
During the Rushdie fatwa… had every western media simply said, “Enough… we are publishing one page of his book every day until this fatwa ends.” and then during the Danish cartoons… “Ok… we publish the cartoons every anniversary of the burning of the Danish consulates.”
The media won’t do anything this time… either. Whether individuals, Jihad Watch, and other groups take a stand is somewhat beside the point. Had the mainstream media published the cartoons, Satanic Verses excerpts, etc. on-mass… Muslims would have lost the battle years ago. Protest one magazine…90,000 more publish the article. Kill someone over a cartoon… it gets published in thousands of newspapers every year. Within days, it would be so obvious that you can’t “win” such a contest that is isn’t funny.
Individuals, the occasional brave media, Jihad Watch, and other groups can ‘stand’, but it doesn’t have the same effect as a mass media publication of the materials. Mass media means anytime you try violence to stop a cartoon… the problem gets worse for you. Mass medial means the more you use violence, the more people see the material. If you can shut down the BBC, CNN, MBC, Fox, and a thousand other large groups by violence… most people won’t see it and you can ‘deal’ with the Charlie Hebdo’s, Jihad Watches, bloggers, etc. later. Each act of violence moves you closer to your goal.
Mainstream media has sold itself — and western societies in general — out. Maybe if we are lucky the Internet will continue to supplant them, but still… no Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. rushing to publish these either. As long as ‘standing’ is left to smaller groups… the terrorists can always see that the tactic works and that it is merely a matter of eventually getting to them. Far better if they immediately saw that every act immediately make the situation a thousand times worse for them and there is no possible way of shutting even a fraction of them down.
Spot On says
I seem to recall that the many years ago, the media had the same kind of problem with the Mafia. The media didn’t cower then. This time it is not the Mafia but Islam and Muslims are nearly 70% Democrat voters. The MSM is 90% Democrat voters. I doubt the MSM will betray their Democrat base. They will cower.
Howard says
I presume that what these people want is to ban the publication of any book, article, film or image that is likely to provoke violence.
Shall we start with the Koran?