|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Protect even 'hate' speech
by John Donnelly https://www.legal-project.org/887/protect-even-hate-speech Excerpt: There is an important lesson for us Americans in Geert Wilder's case. The insidious nature of "political correctness" has warped the perception of our individual rights, especially freedom of speech. Wilders is a parliamentarian leader in his native Netherlands. He is on trial there for crimes the prosecution initially declined to charge. A court compelled the prosecution. With conclusion of the evidence, the prosecution wanted its own case dismissed claiming the evidence was insufficient. Wilders had been accused of hate speech for publicly equating Islam with Nazism. The prosecution itself called it "legitimate political speech" and not warranting prosecution. Because a presiding judge at the trial was biased against Wilders, the case will be retried. The First Amendment to our Constitution states, inter alia, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly protected our right to free speech. Even the most distasteful, insensitive and offensive speech, unless reasonably expected to provoke violence, is protected speech under our Constitution. The vilest condemnations of the Roman Catholic Church for the Inquisition or for the recent clerical abuse of children are protected speech. And yet, for decades now we have witnessed a continuing erosion of the perception of what constitutes free speech. We have been made to feel guilty by the elites in our government and society for expressing certain opinions because some class or group of people has taken offense. Some state legislatures have even passed "hate crime statutes," penalty enhancement laws, mandating additional punishment for a crime expressing hate for a specific class or group, notably those of a religious affiliation, racial origin or sexual orientation. While vandalism is a crime punishable in law, anyone spraying a swastika on a synagogue under these laws is subject to a greater punishment because the crime is motivated and expressive of hate for a specific group. Such laws are governments' efforts to control free speech. An expression of hate, however insensitive or immoral, is not in itself unlawful. No criminal law ever obligated me to prove the motive of a defendant I prosecuted. A defendant's motive for a crime was irrelevant and not an element of the offense. Now, under these hate laws, it is. Read the complete original version of this item... receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing list Note: The content of external articles does not necessarily reflect the views of The Legal Project. |
Geert Wilders Lauds Legal Project "Last June, I was acquitted of all charges by an Amsterdam court. The Middle East Forum's Legal Project ... was always there to help, advise and assist ... The importance of the MEF's Legal Project in reclaiming free expression and political discourse ... cannot be overestimated." — Geert Wilders, September 29, 2011 Latest Blog Posts
News
Recent Articles Latest LP in the Media Most Viewed |