Muslims Lose in Dutch Free Speech Case

There's some good news from Amsterdam: Muslims lost in a bid to censor an obnoxious right-wing politician, Geert Wilders, who is known for his harsh criticism of Islam.

But under this small victory is something much more sinister: a new trick that makes censorship seem OK.

Geert Wilder's case was dismissed on a highly-technical "escape clause" in the law. The judge ruled that Wilders' remarks were directed at Islam (the religion), not at Muslims (the people). That meant his remarks didn't constitute hate speech. Apparently in The Netherlands you can hate a thing but not a person. It's disturbing that the case was thrown out on such a thin technical issue.

This is a small victory for free speech in a modern country where free speech shouldn't even be a question. I'm frankly shocked by this case. Is it really possible that free speech is disappearing in a modern democracy?

Apparently so. Consider this story from Denmark:

Lars Hedegaard, Islamic expert and president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty of racism today by Denmark’s Eastern High Court. He was fined about $1,000. He will appeal.

The charges stemmed from what Hedegaard says were factual statements made about the higher-than-average incidence of family rape in the Muslim world.

But under Denmark's racism law, Article 266b, it doesn't matter if what you said was true. It only matters that a group was insulted.

Got that? Telling the truth can be illegal.

European Muslims have discovered a very clever Orwellian trick. Instead of being for censorship,

Jews Erase Hillary Clinton from Iconic Situation-Room Photo

Are any of you modern women thinking maybe conservative Judaism is for your? Check out this story.

The ultra-orthodox publication Di Tzeitung took the famous photo of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and their advisors, and erased Secretary Clinton and another woman from the photo! They claim that modesty prevents them from publishing pictures of women.

But wait ... isn't that censorship? Isn't that revising history? There were two women in the room. What sort of paper alters the facts when reporting a story? Oh, wait ... this is religion. I forgot, they alter facts all the time!

Arkansas Shows It Has More Than Hillbillies: Elton John Baby Pics

Here in the United States we have a bad habit of stereotyping our states. Kentucky has nothing but tough farmers with shotguns over their shoulders and a scarecrow in every field; Texas is filled with gun-toting cowboys; if you're from New York you are either Jewish or from Brooklyn or both ... and so on. And if you're from Arkansas, you're a dumb hillbilly.

Well, it seems the citizens of Arkansas have shown us that they're made of better stuff than that.

The story started when Us Weekly magazine put a big picture of Elton John, his husband and their newly adopted baby on the front cover of the magazine. This apparently offended the sensibilities of Harps Grocery story chain, which put a "family values" shield in front of it so that children couldn't see the cover.

That's the same shield they use to hide pornography from the kids. Not only that,

The Facebook Hate-Islam Groups

Warning: Adult Language

Where does free speech end and hate speech begin? Is it OK to say, "Fuck Islam" or "Fuck Christianity" or any other religion? How about "Fuck religion"? (And let's not forget "Fuck atheism"!)

If you go to Facebook.com and search for "Fuck Islam", you'll find over 500 groups. And many, including several with large memberships, are Islam-bashing groups with lots of nasty things to say.

But just scroll down a bit in the list and you'll find lots of "Ban the 'Fuck Islam' Facebook group" groups. Or boycott, protest, demand-censorship, and so on. And paging down through the groups, you find "fuck the fuck Islam group" and even deeper parody.

When I first saw the "Fuck Islam" group on Facebook, I was up in arms. Although I am an atheist and don't care for most religion, I try to always keep the debate respectful (except in the rare case where I believe religion hurts or kills people or appears fraudulent).

So is "Fuck Atheism" a form of hate speech? I don't know. One comment I read says no – hate speech has to suggest violence, some sort of action, and this expression merely indicates contempt. I thought this was an excellent point.

On the other hand, this sort of speech surely doesn't help anything. It further divides an already-divided world, it ends dialog, and it angers Muslims (or whatever group is being insulted).

Should "Fuck Islam" groups be banned from Facebook? If I were in charge at Facebook, I suspect I'd favor free speech over censorship.

But I would never join such a group.

Christians Twist Fairness Doctrine into Censorship

Look out, the Christian right is at it again, twisting "freedom of speech" to mean their speech only! Somehow, the Fairness Doctrine is being twisted into a sinister censorship plot against Christians. It's so ludicrous it would be funny, except that these people are serious.

The Fairness Doctrine, which started in 1949, requires broadcasters to present issues of public importance, and to present a variety of views. They can't just broadcast sports, or sitcoms, or Christian sermons, all day long. And they can't present just one side of public issues; they have to give time to opposing and divergent views. It was the price you paid for getting a monopoly to use a radio frequency: It is a public resource, so you have to serve the public's needs. Democracy would be threatened if every TV and radio station in the country was owned by a few big businesses that completely controlled what was broadcast.

The Fairness Doctrine was rescinded in 1989 by Republicans under President Regan, but now there's talk of reinstating it – and the Christians are howling. The idea of sharing their monopoly, and presenting all sides of issues of importance to this Republic, has been twisted into "censorship." That's right, if they have to present their point of view alongside opposing points of view, it's censorship.

How embarrassing for them. If these Christians, who I hope don't represent mainstream Christian views, are so afraid of a real debate, what does that say about their faith? Not much.

Tags: christian censorship fairness doctrine republican atheist atheism

Lori Drew Fallout: Most Atheist Bloggers are FEDERAL FELONS!

Seriously.

A while back, my blog, "Atheists, Get Out of the Damned Closet" pointed out that the majority of Atheist bloggers do so anonymously. In a case that should frighten all bloggers, a recent court decision made this a federal felony. This is no joke, and if the decision is left standing after the appeal, anonymous blogging may be a thing of the past.

There's an old lawyer's saying, something like, "Bad cases make bad law." The tragic suicide of Megan Meier, allegedly triggered by "cyberbullying" on the part of defendant Lori Drew, is one such case. Drew created a MySpace.com account under false pretenses, pretending to be a 14-year-old boy, befriended Meiers, and then started sending hurtful and hateful messages, and Megan killed herself.

Unfortunately, this sort of harrassment, while reprehensible, is not criminal. Lori Drew violated MySpace's terms of service, but did not violate any criminal statutes.

But the prosecutor's office was under intense pressure to do something, so it tried to stretch the law. It claimed that by violating MySpace's terms of service, she was accessing a computer in violation of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), and thus a federal felon. Drew was brought to trial and convicted, and now faces up to three years in prison and $300,000 in fines.

This contortion of the law gives every web-site operator in the United States the ability to write criminal law. If you violate the terms of service of any web site, you are a criminal. A federal felon. Here are a couple examples:

• All children who use Google are federal felons, since Google's terms of service require you to be 18 or older.
• The majority of teens who use MySpace are federal felons, since most parents encourage their children to post incomplete or false identifying information.
• You'd be a fool to use YouTube.com at all, because their terms of service prohibits "bad stuff."

To illustrate what a terrible law this is, I could attach a "terms of use" to this blog that prohibited Christians from reading it, and under the United States v. Drew decision, all Christians who read this blog would become federal felons.

If you would like to learn more about this from a much more authoritative source (or if you don't believe me or think I'm exaggerating), I highly recommend Groklaw's analysis, and especially the amicus brief (PDF - scroll down to "Facts and Summary") filed by the Electronic Freedom Foundation. It's truly frightening.

Tags: blogging law drew suicide censorship internet atheist atheism