Is America Switching Teams?
America should stand tall for liberty and freedom. We are a beacon of hope for the world. Yet, I worry we are picking the wrong side in many struggles for liberty and freedom, selling out friends in order to placate thugs and enemies. It doesn't work in high school, and it doesn't work in international relations. While the thugs and enemies might say nicer things about us, appeasement empowers them.
I couldn't have imagined a day that the United States would take a stand against the freedom of speech, but here we are. Using the clout of the United States to work against free speech is morally repugnant. We cannot raze core pillars of freedom and liberty, in order to placate other nations.
Stories involving actual individuals get all the attention. This story likely will not get much attention, since it involves the evisceration of liberties belonging to faceless masses. But it is horrific.
I couldn't have imagined a day that the United States would take a stand against the freedom of speech, but here we are. Using the clout of the United States to work against free speech is morally repugnant. We cannot raze core pillars of freedom and liberty, in order to placate other nations.
Stories involving actual individuals get all the attention. This story likely will not get much attention, since it involves the evisceration of liberties belonging to faceless masses. But it is horrific.
posted by steve u. at 10/19/2009
Subscribe
3 Comments:
Curious as to what the fuss was about, I went to the linked story to find that the resolution was in support of free speech with the exception of "negative racial and religious stereotyping". It was passed UNANIMOUSLY by all 47 nations on the U.N. Human Rights Council. The story goes on to say that "Though [the resolution] has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.
In light of the incidents of rioting, violence, and deaths that were the direct result of hate filled comments directed at a particular religion, one could reasonably draw an analogy to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" restriction on free speech.
It is often helpful to do a bit of research to ascertain the accuracy of criticisms directed at the current administration from the far right and to see the incident that is the object of their venom in the context in which it took place. Once "unspun" in this fashion it is possible have an unbiased look an see the situation for what it really is.
Since when did Jonathan Turley occupy the far right or any spot on the right? He is decidedly left of center; he, like I, reverences free speech.
When you start regulating speech along these lines, it is always a big problem. In the case of many of the nations that will use our imprimatur, it will become a license to jail, beat and kill innocents.
It is wonderful that you have faith in the nations of the world to crack down on speech in a "proper" manner. If only many nations of the world acting in such a way to warrant your faith.
Darn. Last sentence: "acted" instead of "acting." Or, better yet, "were to act." Had we but world enough, and time . . ..
And, by the way, JB, I do appreciate you coming on here and stating your opinion in a strong, reasoned manner. It is never wise to disagree with me, (I kid, I kid), but it is always welcome. These things wouldn't be any fun, if it were just the choir.
<< Home