It looks obvious

How dare those CEO’s spreading disinformation (and it has to be disinformation) that oppose James Hansen opinion? Obviously, they should put on trial and than burn on the stake for crimes against humanity, which casting doubt on the great truth coming from Hansen’s mouth apparently is:

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

And the answer to the modern inquisitors, Hansen and his like, that try to eradicate any sign of heresy is: “E pur si muove!”

When you restrict freedom of speech so it will not offend segment of the population how do you prioritize which segment’s feelings are more valuable? Is it not OK to insult Muslims for their believes but OK to insults evangelical christians? This is the kind of issues the NY Times usually ignores, mostly because it is pretty clear in the editorial room what should be considered acceptable.

I am as far as it can be from evangelical christian and I don’t agree with most of what they believe in, advocate for and even the tactic they are choosing to peruse their goals. However I accept their right to be wrong and primitive as long as they don’t force me to change my way of life. This is simple form of tolerance that Liberal Democracies should maintain. This is not, however, what Canada “human rights” commissioner vision of human rights:

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

[...]

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

It is a peculiar world where the only criteria to choose which groups human rights are protected is the politicly corrected current fashion…

(via LRC)

There they go again! This time the NY Times questions the merits of the American approach toward freedom of speech. What is strikingly shocking is that the only justification to ban certain form of speech, particularly what many define as “hate speech” is because:

“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”

The mere fact that other countries find it appropriate to regulate opinions seems to those who advocate for imposing the same legal structure in the US. This argument seems so strong in fact that I could not find any other justification - nor the argument that such freedom promote violence, any supporting data to prove the horrible damage inflicted by the, almost, unrestricted freedom of speech in the US. Nor does the article bother to show any evidence of any benefit derived from restricting the right of people to express their opinion, as wrong and hateful as they might be.

I have to admit that I’m using similar litmus test, but also very different - If it was adopted by Western European countries it have to be very suspicious. Quite often the comparison reviles that the European system is not such a good deal…

This is another example why I am not, and will not, be a member of the ACLU. Ownership and allowing consumers to decide for themselves, by making purchasing decisions, is one human right the ACLU choose not to protect for political reasons. Inviting the FCC to regulate more than it does already is invitation for more abuses of the Freedom of Speech, but this apparently doesn’t concern the ACLU.

The Freedom of speech and the Freedom of Association are both part of the civil liberties the ACLU was supposed to protect. They are also rights protected by the constitution. But apparently the ACLU has very selective approach to civil liberties protection, and that disqualify its integrity altogether.

One of the things I never learned is latin, but I trust this is accurate:

The regulator’s motto is “Dirigo, ergo sum” — I boss people around, therefore I am.

As the rest of George Will’s column about the dreary implications of the McCain-Fiengold campaign finance reform:

Parker North is a cluster of about 300 houses close to the town of Parker. When two residents proposed a vote on annexation of their subdivision to Parker, six others began trying to persuade the rest to oppose annexation. They printed lawn signs and fliers, started an online discussion group and canvassed neighbors, little knowing that they were provoking Colorado’s speech police.

One proponent of annexation sued them. This tactic — wielding campaign finance regulations to suppress opponents’ speech — is common in the America of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The complaint did not just threaten the Parker Six for any “illegal activities.” It also said that anyone who had contacted them or received a lawn sign might be subjected to “investigation, scrutinization and sanctions for campaign finance violations.”

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The exercise of this right often annoys governments, and the Parker Six did not know that Colorado’s government, perhaps to discourage annoyances, stipulates that when two or more people associate to advocate a political position, and spend more than $200 in doing so, they become an “issue committee.”

As such, they probably should hire a lawyer because even Colorado’s secretary of state says the requirements imposed on issue committees are “often complex and unclear.” Committees must register with the government; they must fund their activities from a bank account opened solely for that purpose; they must report to the government the names and addresses of all persons who contribute more than $20; they must also report the employers of plutocrats who contribute more than $100; they must report non-cash contributions such as lemons used for lemonade, and magic markers and wooden dowels for yard signs.

I’m having an interesting discussion with Elad about what constitute “Free” and the dangers of regulating virtues for the “public good”. I was looking for a relevant example, and the story about the FCC appeal to the supreme court about previous ruling regarding the enforcement of the indecency act is a perfect match. I wrote about the FCC transformation from coordinator of the airwaves to the morality police. The logic is simple - once the public fund an activity, or resource such as the airwaves, it has a valid claim to be consultant about the use done with it. In other words, if one’s money fund the airwaves she has the right to object to the way her money is being used. And on this ground, using massive help of social conservative and evangelical group demonstrating their concern about the content that is being delivered on the airwaves, the FCC assume the role of decency police. 

One can see the similarities to other countries that feel obligated to protect the decency of their citizens, or start wonder when the FCC will make an attempt to regulate political speech. The sad thing is that in the current regulatory climate nobody even hope to repeal the decency act, just to scale it down:

We should really be proud about the results of our “Nation Building” and “Spreading Democracy” into Afghanistan. Thank to us the Afghans now enjoy freedom of speech - they have the freedom to say whatever they want and the government in return:

The NeoCon logic of “Spreading Democracy” tied together with alliances with tyrannic regimes doesn’t strike me as brilliant, successful or moral. And yet it is consider radical, outright stupid and fringe to suggest otherwise.

It is sad that people still need to explain that Freedom of Speech cannot be limited in order to prevent someone from being offended. It is preposterous that the attack on one of the most fundamentals of our human rights is being carried by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It make sense only in a world “Slavery in Freedom” and “War is Peace”.

Well argued Ezra!

One quick note before I’m out of the office.

Huckabee victory in Iowa was not thank to large budget, One thing his campaign was lacking is money. Thompson and McCain running a pretty tied budget campaigns and despite this had very nice results yesterday. Can we finally agree that the premiss behind the McCain-Feingold Campaign reform is false?

Kareem is an Egyptian blogger that was sentenced for 4 years in jail because his advocacy for human rights. On November 9th, the Free Kareem organization coordinating world wide rallies, pleading the Egyptian government to release him. I will not be able to participate in the NY rally, as I will be on my way to Israel, but the least I can do is spread the word.

More details, and rally information, should be published here.