The Obama Doctrine? Censuring Free
Speech
International Business Times –
Publius – 10/1/2012
If President Barack Obama was
serious last week when he addressed the United Nations, then he just quietly
declared war on the First Amendment. If he was not serious, then he is
pandering to murderous mobs who demanded that he denounce an obscure YouTube
video critical of their faith.
"Slander" is speech. "Hate" usually
takes the form of speech, too. Is Obama calling on world leaders to join him in
ridiculing non-violent people whose speech he does not like? Or by
“marginalization” does he mean something worse than tough words from the bully
pulpit?
Obama’s new doctrine is frightening
in two senses. His call to “marginalize” those who "slander" or "hate"
encourages the autocrats of Iran , Syria , and other regimes to punish
dissidents while also threatening to shrink the free speech rights of
Americans.
At first, governments ban only a few
“hateful” words. But we know where this ends. Every time such broad power is
given to the powerful, they determine that everything critical of their power is
“hate” and therefore banned. Over time, free speech is lost.
U.S. presidents and judges
have never bestowed this power upon themselves, nor can they under
U.S. law, and this is why the country
remains free.
Obama’s words signal a sharp
departure. For generations, presidents have defended the rights of individuals
to say unpopular things, as long as they avoided imminent violence. Obama told
the UN that even non-violent speech -- if he considers it hateful -- should be
punished through government sponsored marginalization. This rewrites two
centuries of First Amendment law.
Bad speech should be countered by
good speech, and that is the job of the citizens, not the government. The
government may not pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. In
America , politicians cannot punish
free speech.
Americans have no constitutional
right to not be offended. Neither does the president, nor murderous, rioting
mobs in Cairo .
Offending others is an American tradition. The constitutional guarantee of free
speech extends to all viewpoints. There is no exception for “hate speech,”
whatever that broad, vague term might mean. How will America respond
to this gradual erosion of free speech? We must resist the temptation to
condone affronts to the First Amendment simply because we dislike the message of
the speaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment