More Attacks on Our First Amendment

Well here we go:

Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on "hate speech" and "misinformation" in media. "Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as 'news'," they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.

I’ve got some hate speech for you-kiss my ass.

The First Amendment is quite clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And who do these thirty some organizations think should judge what is hateful and what is not? Keith Olbermann, good/Glenn Beck, bad? Yeah. The problem with determining what is “hate speech” is that there are too many variables. Ear/eye of the beholder and all that. That is why our Founders didn’t throw a bunch of qualifiers in to the First Amendment.

You have every right to annoy, offend and cause me hurt feelings and I can do the same to you. Grownups have a way of working these things out-mainly, if you don’t like it ignore or refute it or, if the mood strikes, one up it, but don’t act like a poor little child whose sensitivities must be protected by the all powerful State.

It is important to remember that people who want to restrict speech are perfectly fine allowing some hate speech filter through-in the interest of cultural diversity, sensitivity, blah, blah, blah. Controlling the message is merely one means of controlling the messenger and it is the tool of tyrants.

This is Only a Test-UPDATED

The rest of the cartoon is found at Day by Day.

h/t Don Surber

UPDATE:

POWIP weighs in.  No hate mail, please.

And Troglopundit has his This Week in Automotivators up.  My favorite:

What is your favorite?

The University of Ottawa to Ann Coulter: Welcome to Canada. Please Leave Your Mouth at Home.

I tripped across this earlier at SteynOnline:

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa

Now that this has garnered its own Memeorandum thread, what the heck, I'll throw in my two cents.
 
I am an Ann Coulter fan.  God bless her, Coulter doesn't have a politically correct bone in her body.  Houle has thrown down the gauntlet and I am willing to bet that Ann will pick it up and slap him silly with it. 
 
Look, Coulter is going to say whatever she pleases.  The idea that she is expected to check her mouth at the border is ludicris.  That she should be expected to stifle her right to free speech under penalty of law is beyond sad.  I've been to Canada a couple of times and the country has some fine qualities.  Shamefully, freedom can no longer be counted among them.
 
More at:
 
The Other McCain
 
Legal Insurrection
 
Five Feet of Fury

Supreme Court forks McCain-Feingold

Michelle Malkin (with emphasis added):

Nathan Wurtzel tweets: “Not at all sure GOPers who see SCOTUS decision as a political plus are seeing whole picture. It certainly is constitutionally correct.”

A couple of points:

Yes, unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform.

As for viewing the decision through the “political plus” lens: I don’t. The Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don’t see it that way.

"Political plus"-ness should not be a consideration.  You either believe in and support the First Amendment guarantees of free speech or you don't.  Supporting the Constitution only when it is personally beneficial is a piss poor way to honor one's citizenship.

Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine that if we allow the limitation of campaign speech that we could at some point find ourselves in a situation where limitations are placed on all speech? 

Hastings and Sanchez Want To Criminalize Free Speech

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air tells the tale of two bills and my best advice is BE AFRAID.

From Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) of my own state of Florida, we get HR 645. Ed sites Mark Tapscott:

Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.’”

Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs” - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.

It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp.

If that doesn’t scare you enough, combine it with HR 1966 introduced by Rep, Linda Sanchez (D):

‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Call me paranoid but I am getting the feeling that Hastings and Sanchez are trying to criminalize the free speech of those opposed to the Administration’s policies. Anyone who has read Mark Steyn, Blazing Cat Fur or Ezra Levant is well aware of the legalized assault on free speech in Canada. Restricting opinion for any reason should be vigorously opposed by anyone who values the free exchange of ideas but unlike the Canadian model that uses the threat of financial ruin to suppress expression, Hastings and Sanchez also threaten imprisonment in “camps.” I can’t help but think of Cuba or North Korea.

We are a country that looks at the evil that routinely takes place throughout the world and think, “that could never happen here.” Probably not. But, did you ever think someone would propose these types of laws here? Sometimes unimaginable things happen.

So It Begins...

Via Instapundit:

AS BLOGS ARE CENSORED, it’s kittens to the rescue! Plus this: “You have to have the sword at home. You don’t want to have to buy a sword at the last minute.”

Kittens are popping up at blogs all over the place. If it will protect me from censorship I’ll play along.

I should be safe now, right? No?

Does The Left Want To Limit Free Speech?

I found a relationship between two seemingly unrelated stories.

Instapundit links to Kathy Shaidle and Ezra Levant. Shaidle, Levant and Mark Steyn share the honor of being on the wrong(?) side of complaints brought before Canada’s Human Rights Commissions. For those of you unfamiliar with the CHRC, the commission is the government body in Canada that determines which Canadians will have their rights protected and which Canadians are screwed. The CHRC does not protect “rights” across the board, rather, it chooses which rights it wants to protect at any given moment and often rules in a manner contradictory to its previous rulings. By means of example, examine the every unequal treatment given to the Rev. Stephen Boisson, a Christian minister and Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, a Muslim cleric.

Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that condemned homosexuality. The letter can be read here. The Reverend’s views were deemed “hate speech” by the CHRC.

In addition to be fined $5,000 the following was imposed:

Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.

Among other things, Al-Hayiti wrote:

Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life" "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"

Of course, he didn’t reserve his bile only for gays:

Anyone who leaves Islam, cut his neck” in an Islamic state, Christians and Jews can keep their religion but they must pay a sum of money, the Jizyah. "The purpose of the Jizyah is to humiliate and punish Infidels to encourage them to accept Islam." The other Infidels (Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) have no options but to accept Islam or “be killed"

The Canadian Human Rights Commission rejected a human rights complaint filed against Al-Hayiti.

The danger is that when government is allowed to regulate the message, the government chooses the message, who delivers the message and how it can be delivered. The message becomes driven by the government’s agenda. No free man should ever allow his words to be filtered through politics.

In the United States we are blessed by a First Amendment which guarantees our right to free speech. The Amendment protects all speech including speech that can rightfully be called repugnant. In The Big Hate Paul Krugman frets about free speech, particularly speech by Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity whom he accuses inciting violence:

And that’s a threat to take seriously. Yes, the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril.

It isn’t hard to imagine Krugman, and others of his mindset, calling for Canadian style censorship in the United States. We are in a very difficult period in our country and Krugman’s attempt to link free speech to violence should serve as a wakeup call to all.

UPDATE:

A much needed correction is in the comments section, provided by Blazing Cat Fur. I’ve heard that he is the hardest workin CAT in Show Business.