U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mr.Fitnah, Oct 3, 2009.

  1. Mr.Fitnah
    Offline

    Mr.Fitnah Dreamcrusher

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Thanks Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paradise.
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

    Free speech death watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, yesterday.

    It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." It also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups," which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative "stereotyping" of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's "negative stereotyping."

    And the worst aspect of this and all such measures is that the "Incitement" and the "hatred" are in the eye of the beholder. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as hate speech. The Founding Fathers tried to protect Americans from tyranny by protecting free speech. Now our free speech is threatened, and tyranny will take advantage of that. But we still have the First Amendment, right? Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn't that easy to dismiss this:


    6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we're protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
    So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed "hate speech" that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).​

    U.S. co-sponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN - Jihad Watch
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Mr.Fitnah
    Offline

    Mr.Fitnah Dreamcrusher

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Thanks Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paradise.
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    I do believe Obamas justice department may try to bring our 1 st amendment under UN control .
    This needs to be watched.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. garyd
    Offline

    garyd Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Ratings:
    +401
    Another way to bring about the so-called fairness doctrine? Which by the way has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with silencing political speech.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    Barryland is the gift that just keeps on giving.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. brewerboy
    Offline

    brewerboy Active Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    777
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    Ratings:
    +76
    Wow.
     
  6. Sherry
    Offline

    Sherry You're not the boss of me Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    21,488
    Thanks Received:
    8,794
    Trophy Points:
    960
    Location:
    some beach
    Ratings:
    +11,072
    They can condemn away and wag their fingers in shame if it makes them feel good, but it's the "criminalization" aspect which is a load of crap.
     
  7. Lost Soul
    Offline

    Lost Soul Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    584
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +118
    And the liberals cheer!
     
  8. noose4
    Offline

    noose4 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,127
    Thanks Received:
    610
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Hell's Kitchen N.Y.C.
    Ratings:
    +610
    boy hitler sure was lucky that the above u.n. measure was not around back when he was aquiring power.


    to conservatives this is a bad thing:
     
  9. Mr.Fitnah
    Offline

    Mr.Fitnah Dreamcrusher

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,480
    Thanks Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paradise.
    Ratings:
    +2,673
    Yeah that could never be open to interpretation or misused.
     
  10. noose4
    Offline

    noose4 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,127
    Thanks Received:
    610
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Hell's Kitchen N.Y.C.
    Ratings:
    +610
    "incitement to violence" a terrible thing to outlaw, and this measure should have the anti israel nutjobs up in arms and not the anti islam nutjobs because this measure is obviously aimed at the likes of Ahmanijedad and other mid east leaders who put forth hate filled speech towards the jewish people and israel.
     

Share This Page