I’m not in favor of the burning of any book, and I believe that people ought to read and understand the Qur’an rather than burn it. However, note that Stengel is calling for legal “guardrails” against “speech that incites hate.”
If someone burns a Bible, no one cares. If someone burns a Qur’an, there are riots and death threats. So for Stengel, burning a Bible would not be “speech that incites hate,” but burning a Qur’an would be. Saying that “speech that incites hate” must be criminalized is tantamount to calling for the heckler’s veto to be enshrined in law. Stengel says: “Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.”
So if Muslims riot over burned Qur’ans, we must outlaw burning Qur’ans. That would only signal to Muslims that they can get us to bend to their will by threatening violence, and ensure that we will see many more such threats. In Richard Stengel’s ideal world, non-Muslims are cowed into silence by Muslims who threaten to kill them if they get out of line, and by non-Muslim officials who react to the threats by giving the Muslims what they want.
Note also that Leftist and Islamic groups in the U.S. have for years insisted, with no pushback from any mainstream politician or media figure, that essentially any and all criticism of Islam, including analysis of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, is “hate speech” and “speech that incites hate.” Thus Richard Stengel will silence that as well, and the global jihad will be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded.
In a year or two I might have told you “I warned you this was coming,” but by then I probably won’t be able to.
“Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions,” by Steven Nelson, New York Post, November 13, 2020:
President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make “hate speech” a crime.
Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.
He wrote: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”
Stengel offered two examples of speech that he has an issue with: Quran burning and circulation of “false narratives” by Russia during the 2016 election.
“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” Stengel wrote.
“It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”…
“Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation,” Stengel wrote.
“I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites ‘imminent lawless action’ or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?”…
Mount Zion says
What about restrictions on the content of the Quran when it calls for the killing of infidels ? Wouldn’t that make more sense ?
revereridesagain says
Of course. But we’re talking religious sensibilities here. Common sense is never a factor. And in the case of the Krayon, the advocates of killing infidels can point to their imaginary invisible god — in all directions of course — and blame it on “Him”. “He” is the continual Creator and Dictator of the Universe, we are only doing “His” bidding, yadda yadda yadda. Their “holy book” does not command them to wait for the god to exact vengeance, it tells them to go take flying lessons and to it themselves.
Whose “speech that incites hate” needs a close eye kept on it, here?
Kola says
I agree.
Thanks for sharing!!
CogitoErgoSum says
Burning the Bible does not incite hate but burning the Koran does. That is because the Koran teaches hate while the Bible does not.
waldland says
Good point.
mortimer says
Bible “Love your enemies and do good to those that hate you.” (Jesus)
Westman says
“No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself.” — Muhammad
Muslims quote this as proof of a “golden rule” of Islam, expecting that the unbelievers won’t realize they are excluded as NON-brothers and in fact are designated in the Quran as targets for conquest, forced conversion, dhimmitude, or death.
Christianity invites inclusion while Islam demands apartheid.
Mount Zion says
Kuran :”Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them..”
Dude says
Let’s get realistic, dude.
Based on observations from around the world, it is far far more likely that Christians and Jews will be burned, raped, enslaved, beaten and robbed. Ya got a law for that, dude?
And why the hell would we bother to give them the opportunity to intimidate us that way? We don’t need that element on our streets, where our kids play. They’re stuck in the desert for a reason. Leave them there; let them figure out what went wrong on their own.
David Longfellow says
Normal democrat hypocrisy.
If they didn’t have situational ethics, they’d have no ethics at all.
Like the Nazis, they are only for burning the “right” books.
Boycott Turkey says
It the part of the article where it says “There laws started out as protections against the kind of anti Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws
The Hate speech in the Koran gave rise to the Armenian and Greek Genocide and Hindu genocide millions died those morons should be talking about banning that filthy book not protecting it who’s going to protect us from the hate in the Koran which advocates our genocide if this law was passed it would be a blasphemy law so what if Muslims are angry I Am very angry to so if next time Muslims get angry and violent about allowing child marriage because it’s sharia law should that be allowed to ? Islam is hate racism bigotry BAN Koran
Walter Sieruk says
In all fairness better ,as in a more intelligent and sophisticated way deal with Quran than to burn it is to expose the many errors and contradictions this religious book contains.
This has already been done on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Quran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Quran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]? The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Quran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Quran is right.” Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Quran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Quran. Furthermore, the Muslims claim that “the Quran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.”
Furthermore, in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses.
For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.’ Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.” In conclusion, the Quran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.
Even though the above essay was posted before, it should now be added that the last statement of the above that “the Quran is not only a fiction, it’s also a hoax.” To put this in a Biblical way. As in from the Bible, it may be truly explained that the Quran is a deceptive work of “the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Ephesians 14:12.. [N.I.V.]
revereridesagain says
True, but according to these wannabe dictators of thought and speech pointing out its errors is the less dramatic equivalent of burning a Krayon.
Walter Sieruk says
Actually a more intelligent thing to do than burn the Quran is to reveal the “reasoning” flaws that the apologists for the Quran proclaim .
For example, a claim by many Muslims is that no one can produce something as beautiful as the Quran in the way the words are arranged and thus it can only be of God. This claim should be answered.
First, all someone has to do is examine some of the great works of literature to fine much written beauty. Such as the Greek epic poet Homer with his Iliad and Odyssey and then Virgil who produced the Aeneid has beauty. Even one of the non-Bible books in the Apocrypha called The Song of Three Children is also very beautiful. Thus just because someone sees a work that is written in great beauty doesn’t mean it’s inspired by God.
Second, the scholar Edward Gibbon wrote after an examination of the Quran that it is an “incoherent jumble of fable and precept and declamation which seldom excites a sentiment or an idea, sometimes craws in the dust and is sometimes lost in the clouds…” The writer Thomas Carlyle wrote the Quran is “A wearisome jumble, crude, incondite [with] endless iterations [and] long-windedness…” Likewise, the philosopher David Hume was NOT favorably impressed after reading the Quran.
[Source of the three scholars mentioned – Secrets of The Koran: Revealing Insight Into Islam’s Holy Book .56,66, by Don Richardson]
Second , the following should be taken into consideration.
Of course the Muslim who reads the Quran will see great beauty in the way the words are arranged. This is, in part, because of the power of suggestion after being told so many times that the Quran is so beautifully written. That’s an old brainwashing method, repeating and being told that same thing again and again. Since he or she is always being told the same lie will end up believing that lie. In addition to that, the Imams try to discourage their people from reading other works, such as the Bible, so then they don’t have much or anything to compare or contrast the Quran with. Of course there are some Muslim’s that do read other works, but they are exceptions and they read other things only after they were already brainwashed by the Imams. In short, the Muslims can’t read the Quran objectively because their Imams have programmed them to have a strong bias towards it.
observer says
Dear Robert
I am now very, very seriously worried for the world.
These vipers will soon begin to slither all around Europe wth their usual evil intent once they awaken to the fact of Western leaders gathering to look at the issues.
We don’t need to go into their intent.
They have left a trail of horror, mahem and death wherever they are found. They will continue to do same.
After all, they even slaughter their own.
You are a voice in a thankless wilderness.
I have huge respect for you and I know I shall be praying more earnestly for our world now.
KYRIE ELEISON ?✝️?
john smith says
+1
SJ says
So, hate speech against Islam shouldn’t be protected because it offends Muslims, who would then resort to violence? What a stupid argument! If anything, it shows that ‘Islamophobia’ is fake because the threat posed by Islam is indeed very real!
This guy should go live in Germany.
DavidR says
It’s not the words that anger Muslims, it’s the idea that they are allowed to be uttered or read by average people. Islamists must call unpleasant facts about Islam hate speech and they are readily accommodated by non-Muslims who think the 5 Pillars of Islam are “in Egypt or somewhere”.
Also in the news: The stalled “Road to Hell” project is set to begin immediately and is fully funded a huge backlog of good intentions.
Keith O says
Taking this to the logical but unnerving conclusion. What they are actually doing is attempting to ban thought and free thinking.
Speech is the result of thoughts being articulated. So banning nasty speech is to ban bad thoughts and any thoughts that are critical of Islam.
Of course Mudslimes are incapable of free thought, as this ability has been, through the use of a selective breeding program, been reduced to zero.
Therefore those capable of this nasty thought processes must be converted to Islam to prevent said nasty thoughts from occurring and then being articulated into free speech.
Simple really!
Ade Fegan says
“Think back twenty years and imagine that someone then had told you
that developed Western democracies would spend the first decades
of the twenty-first century introducing new blasphemy laws.
“You mean ‘repealing’ surely?” your wise younger self would probably have said.
And if you had been persuaded that,
no, new blasphemy laws really were going to be brought into effect
in the not-too-distant future, doubtless your follow-on question would have been,
“So how did the Spanish inquisition manage to make such a comeback?”
…. Douglas Murray
simpleton1 says
Although not on topic, it is still in the area of censorship.
Big Tech, is trying to control “wrong think”.
A good article from a good site.
The WordPress company is not explaining the reason for deplatforming because there is no justifiable reason for it.
At the same time, they are bold in their position.
Perhaps this is the most alarming part; and everyone should pay attention.
They don’t care.
Truthful assembly is now the risk.
CTH is now too big; with a site reach of 500,000 to a million unique readers each day; and with well over 200,000 subscribers; our assembly is too large, too influential, and presents a risk…
….Ten years of work assembling a library of factual citations and explanations of those discoveries, positions CTH to be a leading force in the rebel alliance push-back.
[Heck, that’s why this place was started… that was our purpose: “The Truth Has No Agenda.” ] However, that also makes us a target; hence the deplatforming.
…. The content within the largest blog on that global platform is what has become troublesome.
…. On a very positive note, the Rebel Alliance is stronger than ever and no amount of effort by Big Tech is going to be able to weaken the resolve or block the message. …..
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/15/the-treehouse-is-deplatformed/#more-203863
All the best to Sundance and crew.
Onwards and Upwards to be even more effective
I have always found that CTH is not over the top, is well considered, thoughtful, reasoned, and gives much to think on.
The comments as I have found are reasonably respectful, and try to follow where the truth goes.
I am not surprised in some ways but I am flabbergasted.
Also thanks to Robert Spencer, and the work you do to bring truth to the debate and discussion.
revereridesagain says
“But it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another”. Speech does not “cause violence”. Ignoring the principle that nothing justifies violence but self-defense against violence initiated by another does that, and soothing ones widdle hurt feewings via violence does not fall into that category.
“If someone burns a Bible, no one cares.” Nonsense. Christians get all bent out of shape. In centuries past it might lead to the stake or at least the stocks. Until more enlightened thinkers convinced enough people that to try to paralyze human thought and silence its expression by force is the most indefensible violation of our nature that anyone can commit. Also, the bible does not command its readers to go out and commit murder and enslavement in its name. The Quran, however, does. Its imaginary god commands Islam be imposed by force or, failing that, dissenters be charged a fee for engaging in “offensive” dissent. How about a legal ban on that kind of expression, given how often it actually does incite violence? Islam claims the right to impose its beliefs by force. Are we to be silenced for resisting? Well yes, of course, that’s the whole idea.
Oh, and much of what constituted the blood libels and anti-Jewish rants that fueled the Holocaust were accusations of crimes (such as ritual murder and/or “killing Jesus”) against innocent people. That’s called libel and slander and there are no “free speech” protections against it.
“In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation.” So if someone claims that I, being atheist, must be running around all night robbing ATM machines because I’m “godless”, is that “hate speech” or not? That list is made up of factors some of which are inborn and others which are matters of choice. There’s not even agreement about which.
The people advocating silencing our freedom of speech don’t even try to make sense. They just throw out into the air “reasons” they think will “make the most sense” to the largest number of unthinking people and allow them to tell us to “shut up or else”.
James Lincoln says
revereridesagain says,
““If someone burns a Bible, no one cares.” Nonsense. Christians get all bent out of shape.”
Generally speaking…
The average Christian *today* finds Bible burning disrespectful and it makes them sad – but that’s about it.
And they generally pray for the person doing the burning…
Peter WF says
As usual the dumbest in the world are protected and nurtured.
Search “world map average IQ”.
mortimer says
Does Richard Stengel have half of a brain?
Did Richard Stengel ever sit down to read the Koran and count all the hate in it?
mortimer says
Mr. Stengel, are the following verses ‘hate speech’?
The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses: K 2:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 3:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 4:71-72, 74-077, 84, 89-91, 94-95,100-104; 5:33, 35, 82; 8:1, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 39-48, 57-60, 65-75; 9:5, 12-14, 16, 19-20, 24-26, 29, 36, 38-39, 41, 44, 52, 73, 81, 83, 86, 88, 92, 111, 120, 122-123; 16:110; 22:39, 58, 78; 24:53, 55; 25:52; 29:6, 69; 33:15, 18, 20, 23, 25-27, 50; 42:39; 47:4, 20, 35; 48:15-24; 49:15; 59:2, 5-8, 14; 60:9; 61:4, 11, 13; 63:4; 64:14; 66:9; 73:20; 76:8.
Carol says
Thanks for the list, Morty!
gravenimage says
Biden transition official wants speech restrictions, criminalization of burning of Qur’an
……………………
*Terrifying*. And the same sort of thing is happening in Britain:
“UK: Law Commission calls for ‘hate crime and hate speech laws’ that would criminalize Muhammad cartoons”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/11/uk-law-commission-calls-for-hate-crime-and-hate-speech-laws-that-would-criminalize-muhammad-cartoons
More:
Richard Stengel said, “since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred”–no mention that so many of these nations are now overrun with Muslims beheading people for daring to criticize the savagery of Islam.,
And here is more from Richard Stengel, claiming that any who have problems with Islam are “Islamophobes” and “ignorant of Islam”:
https://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/time-editor-richard-stengel-frets-about-americas-islamophobia-ignorance
libertyORdeath says
I’d love to hear the supposed benefits that were gained through the criminalization of speech. Anti Jewish and Anti Christian attacks have surged despite these measures. Add to this the astounding number of fraudulent cases of “islamophobia” and we see what these laws have really done.
somehistory says
This stengle creep must be getting down and dirty five times a day to prey over his book of filth he wants to protect…to the extent of taking away the freedom to say it is filth and calls for mass murders of the innocent.
somehistory says
And just how do these fools **reason** that calling for the murder of Jews and Christians…wherever they may be found, and striking the necks of all who refuse to bow to the fake god of moslims, satan the devil, wouldn’t “incite hate?”
Do they believe that having one;s life threatened will engender love for the one doing the threatening? Do they believe that reading and hearing about those who feel and believe as one may, as a Christian or Jew, being murdered in their sleep, on their job, on the street, will engender love in the hearts of those reading and hearing about their “brothers and sisters in faith being murdered by moslims? Do they believe that Christians and Jews, and others, don’t have the right to “hate” anyone who goes about murdering and raping others?
moslims hate just because. One does not have to **earn** that hatred; it comes automatically and is followed by acts of murder, rape and mayhem.
moslims whine and complain about the fake “phobia” and want that outlawed. Imagine that…they want to outlaw “fear.” They want to punish, severely, anyone and everyone who “fears” islam.
And they want people to outlaw telling the Truth about islam, its filthy book, its fake prophet, and its demon god…unless the one speaking is praising those things; praising the slimy slug, lowlife, lying, mass-murdering, raper of children, son of satan; praising a book of filth that glorifies and commands rape and murder and praising the demon god…who is himself a mass-murderer and liar who wants all of mankind dead.
satan committed terrorism against Job, his children, his wife, his servants, his flocks, and his children engage in the same thing. This stengel creep doesn’t want the Truth of this to reach more people. And he wants to take away the “right” of any American citizen to destroy their own property…copies of the filthy book.
People tear up papers, throw away furniture, clothing, electronics, etc. every day and it’s legal. But he wants to take away that right regarding any book of islamic filth they may possess.
Let him suffer the fate he chooses to force on others.
Andrew says
muslims,Taliban, in Afghanistan, blew the ancient Buddha Statues to pieces and Buddhists, including the Dalia Lama, laughed, no riots, no killings, somebody burns a book written by some silly old farts centuries ago, or some modern day people draw a cartoon and all of a sudden the bloody sky is falling around us and everybody should be busted for thinking.
I do not care what a muslim thinks about my faith, I am not inside his head, however my opinion of his faith causes him to want to kill me,which makes me think that my opinion is very important to him and I am now inside his head, he is bringing me into his head trip. Yet he thinks he follows a religion of peace… Are you having a laugh or what?.
So, if I tell a muslim that I think his religion is very violent and he then attacks me very violently for saying this… is he being a good muslim by proving my point?.
James Lincoln says
Andrew says,
“… is he being a good muslim by proving my point?.”
“Good”, from a muslim point of view, in the sense of being very devout…
sidney penny says
What is hate speech?
Answer at
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/video-robert-spencer-at-cal-poly-may-13-2014
fast forward to 200.27
Do not feel sorry for the woman who asked that question
James Lincoln says
sidney penny,
Thanks for the link.
I’ve seen it before, but it is worth watching again…
No Muzzies Here says
Sharia has a good friend who will be returning to the White House soon. He will be continuing Obama’s policy of allowing Sharia followers to do anything they want any time they want, to anyone they want.
eduardo odraude says
The remedy for bad or hateful speech is not censorship and state violence against the speaker, but more speech. That is free speech 101, except in some genuine national emergencies. The fact that Stengel is not even at the nursery school level with respect to what free speech means says something about today’s Dem Party.
The Supreme Court seems unlikely to support such laws as Stengel is suggesting. If such a law is ever passed — and I doubt a Republican-majority Senate would pass it — the Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. If the Court did not strike it down, then there should commence a ceaseless pyre onto which people throw their own Qur’ans. So long as what is burned is their own property, they have the right to burn it. If such a law is ever passed, people should be so incorrigible about it that the law cannot be enforced and is repealed.
eduardo odraude says
Also part of “free speech 101” is the principle that free speech laws are there precisely to protect “offensive” speech, because obviously speech that offends no one needs no protection.
eduardo odraude says
This does not mean that it’s necessarily always good or wise for an individual to say things with the intention of offending, but it does mean that the state has no business making that decision for individuals.
Kola says
It is not so much what he says that bothers me. It is what we as Christian do to make sure it doesn’t happen, —-that is my concern.
I am Democrat, but I am first a Christian. I don’t want any restrictions on freedom of speech. If they can restrict freedom in any area, they can do it in any other area.
How people respond to a speech is also a choice!!! Why not legislate that?. !! Can we therefore make anger a crime?
I think we as Christians, should have a plan of action already in place, so that when this kind of things occur, —-we can all Democrat , Republican and independent, work together to stop it.
Love you God bless you.
Our Lord reigns.
Jesus is Lord.
OLD GUY says
If there should be speech restrictions it should be on Islam. The islamic people and the Quran are full of hate and violence against any other form of religion. I stand on my right to burn any book I choose, if I so choose to.
If the islamic people don’t like what is posted maybe they should take a look at the hate and violence they are bringing to the world.
Felix Katz says
You don’t like my words, then go forth and multiply, by yourself……………???
unbeliever1 says
Any law forgiving burning of any book would only result in more burning said book.
gravenimage says
Burning a book–so long as it is your own–is not a crime in any civilized nation.