FREE SPEECH? IT'S UP TO YOU NOW
By Harmony Grant
18 Apr 07
We are in a hold-your-breath moment in American history. Our civil
liberties tremble in enormous danger from Stalinist legislation that
could, within days, largely shatter our freedom of speech. American
civil liberties are our best protection from the abuses of government.
They define the U.S.A. we know and love, a nation where we can travel
and gather in extraordinary freedom, write and read almost anything,
and speak our minds in public. Without civil liberties, there will
be no America left in which to resist “Islamofascism” or
wage “culture wars.” Before any other battle, we must
protect our rights.
On Thursday April 12, Sens. Ted Kennedy and Gordon Smith re-introduced
the federal thought crimes bill, renaming it after Matthew Shepard,
the most famous and misrepresented “hate crime victim.” It’s
like the maraschino cherry in the poisoned gin of lies spread about
this legislation (See, "Top
11 Reasons You Should Fight Hate Laws" ). Shepard wasn’t the victim of a hate crime and
his brutal death was prosecuted without federal help (which is what
a federal hate bill is all about).
It’s poetic justice that Kennedy and Smith chose a fake “hate
crime” victim for fake “anti-hate” legislation.
These laws don’t counter hate; they institutionalize it by
empowering the government to prosecute “bias”—and
to decide whose biases are bad! This bill would allow the feds to
invade states' rights in law enforcement, violating the Constitution.
It would create castes of crime victims in our society, tripling
penalties for criminals who are judged to be motivated by a “bias” that
the government has declared illegal. This means if a 20-year-old
kills a drag queen and a judge thinks he was motivated by rage at
effeminacy he’ll spend three times longer in jail than if he’d
killed his girlfriend because of rage that she cheated.
Violent crimes should be punished, and all their victims should
get satisfaction from the law, period. The government has no business
in the complicated psychology of motivations, beliefs, and biases. “Anti-hate” laws
also do worse than triple penalties for bias-motivated violent crimes;
they set precedents for the criminalization of pure speech itself.
This federal law could pass very soon, within days. The
Imus fiasco demonstrates the culture of censorship promoted by progressive
leftists in mainstream media. A scary willingness to trample freedom
of speech also shows in the European Union’s proposal to punish
Holocaust denial with up to three years’ jail, in all EU states.
This law is before the EU right now, and many believe it will pass.
It will criminalize “denial or trivialization” of the
Jewish Holocaust and 1994 genocide in Rwanda, but no others. A majority
of EU member states refuse to include Communism’s mass murders.
This refusal further reveals the ideological bent of the ban; thought
crime laws enforce one perception of history, and privilege one set
of victims. The same goes for hate laws and all speech bans. They
are, by nature, discriminatory.
Our beliefs always do discriminate
and privilege, but that’s
the right of individuals, not governments. Supreme Court Justice
Robert Jackson said in 1943, "No official, high or petty, can
prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion,
or any other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by
word or act their faith therein."
I wish every American citizen knew and understood those words. Maybe
then we would be quicker to resist a federal hate law that would—among
other things—prescribe approval of homosexuality as national
orthodoxy, silencing moral objections under threat of jail-time.
Who’s Talking about the Hate Bill?
More conservatives are following the leadership of Rev. Ted Pike
and the National Prayer Network, sounding the alarm about the threat
of the federal hate bill. Janet
Folger’s work has been especially
valuable. Townhall columnist Matt Barber served
his readers well with two spitfire pieces about the bill (See, CWA
to Feds: It’s Time to Investigate Fake "Hate Crimes" Reports
and "Gay" Goliath
Lobs Dud at CWA; Aims for Clever, Lands on Silly),
and The New American ran a great critique by Alabama Supreme Court
senior attorney John
Eidsmoe.
World Net Daily
features an excellent
news piece with references to National Prayer
Network. The
Christian Newswire also put out a warning. FOX
News and the Washington
Post both ran a small Associated Press story; Cybercast
News Service and the Washington
Times did their own.
Homosexual news and advocacy organizations write supportively of
the bill, as have the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee
and, of course, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Council
for Public Affairs.
Still, there is far more awareness of the gun
lobby and their resistance to gun control laws than of any kind of “freedom
lobby.” Many,
many major conservative news outlets—and mainstream sources,
of course—remain silent about this horribly dangerous legislation.
Other Arrows in the Anti-Christ Quiver
The federal hate law is just the scariest weapon in an arsenal of
speech control legislation looming over America. Even now, the Supreme
Court is hearing a landmark free speech case; and the Fairness Doctrine,
which would shatter talk radio, is getting bandied about as a solution
to stupid talkers like Imus (and political opponents of the Democrats
in Congress and the Clinton machine).
Imus’ words were crass and mean, just the latest in a string
of bad stuff he’s said. But lynching him is not the right response! “The
only thing worse than an uncivil society is a society where government
legislates what is civil,” comments Charles Haynes of the First
Amendment Center.
“If you want to see what the brave new world of controlled
speech looks like, visit many of our public colleges and universities — places
that are supposed to be bastions of free expression. According to
the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, more than 73%
of public universities maintain unconstitutional speech codes, despite
numerous federal court decisions striking down similar policies.
Overall, 68% of colleges and universities surveyed, including private
institutions, have policies that restrict freedom of speech.” (1)
After Imus slurred the Rutgers' women's basketball team, Oprah Winfrey
hosted them on her show. She praised their grace in “holding
up” under the terrible, horrific trauma of being called a bad
name by a shock jock. The women spoke of “shattered dreams” with
pathos that makes you wonder how they mark a true tragedy like the
Virginia Tech massacre.
Yes, words wound. But I’d rather be called every foul word
found in America’s truckstops than have the federal government
shut somebody’s mouth by force. Doesn’t anybody remember
Stalin? Censorship is one of humankind’s primal urges, and
that’s abundantly clear from our government’s present
actions. It’s up to us to protest, before our right of free
expression is swept away.
Our laws already sufficiently criminalize violent actions committed
against American citizens, whatever their stripes. We do not want
speech codes that ban free expression. We do not want a federal hate
law to create special classes of victims, providing triple penalties
for criminals based on the thinking behind their actions. We do not want Big Brother legislating our thoughts, beliefs, and biases.
Liberals want government to stay out of the bedroom? Well, I want
government to keep their handcuffs off my mind!
Many people do realize this. Big kudos and thanks go to the Christian,
conservative groups who are on the strange side of freedom in the
ongoing case of Deborah Morse, Juneau School
Board v. Joseph Frederick.
This Supreme Court case concerns a student’s right to hold
up a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” across the street
from his school.
Who thinks Joe Frederick should be allowed to hold up this nonsensical,
arguably irreverent, pro-drug banner across the street from his school?
Christians, that’s who! Supporters of the student’s rights
include the Christian Legal Society, the American Center for Law
and Justice, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Rutherford Institute—solidly
conservative organizations. These groups recognize that if school
officials are allowed to censor Frederick’s controversial speech
they will be able to censor other student speech—that of Christians
and conservatives, the most common targets of academic speech codes.
(See Nat Hentoff’s column Saving
Free Speech and Jesus)
This case is a perfect example of defending speech you dislike to
preserve speech you value. And it is further proof that freedom of
speech has become a battle for the conservative right, whose moral
beliefs are the ultimate target of speech codes and “anti-hate” legislation.
If we do not speak up and fight this battle now, we may lose the
chance forever. Now is the time to call and protest to your elected
representatives, demanding that they resist the federal hate bill
when it comes to a full vote in the House. Make your voice heard.
Nothing matters more than defending our civil liberties at this crucial
moment in our nation’s history.
Endnote:
(1) Charles
Haynes' column, April 15, “Imus,
Coulter and the marketplace for offensive speech”
Harmony Grant writes and edits for National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative
watchdog group. Read more of her work at www.hisnamesake.blogspot.com.
Contact her at harmony@truthtellers.org.
Come to www.truthtellers.org for full information on how you can
help preserve freedom of speech in America. (Click What
Can I Do? )
Watch Rev. Pike's film Hate
Crimes: Making Criminals of Christians at video.google.com for the whole story of how ADL took away free
speech in Canada and wants to do the same in America. The film is
also available at www.truthtellers.org in VHS or DVD for $24.90 postpaid.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: For an interview with Rev. Ted Pike or Harmony
Grant, call 503-631-3808.
National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas,
OR 97015
