STEALTH CAMPAIGNS AGAINST FREEDOM
By Harmony Grant
3 Jun 08
On May 8, Homeland Security staff working for Sen. Joe Lieberman published
a paper linking the internet to “homegrown terrorism.” Omb
Watch, a government accountability organization, points out that
the report frequently refers to “domestic radicalization” without
defining the term. Lieberman’s paper troubled many free speech
advocates who recognized its focused attempt to censor the internet.
On May 19, Lieberman tried to do just that. He sent a letter to Google
and demanded it remove “hate videos” posted by terrorist
organizations to YouTube. Parent company Google largely refused; it
defended free speech and debate on its site. The NY
Times published
a healthy editorial rebuttal of Lieberman as a “would-be
censor” Defenders of freedom argue that censoring terrorist
speech might not even help; the government and public can better prepare
against what they know. Anyway, terrorists will find a way to contact
each other, through YouTube or not. Why not leave this speech in the
public domain?
The Times also made the most fundamental argument—for free
speech. “If people use speech to engage in criminal acts, they
should be prosecuted. Cutting off free speech is never the right answer.”
Unfortunately, the Times and major media don’t apply this basic
principle to domestic hate crimes. Slowly, the stealth campaign for
stiffened “anti-hate” laws continues. Anti-hate laws present
the most dangerous threat to freedom of speech, since government can
use them to punish beliefs and biases not just criminal behavior.
A new, powerfully emerging Jewish “civil liberties” front,
Human Rights First, offers a ten
point plan for combating “hate crimes”. The plan urges
society to condemn bias-driven crimes; enact special laws against them;
strengthen law enforcement to prosecute offenders; train and provide
special resources to law enforcement; create special inquiries and
monitoring systems for hate crimes; create and strengthen anti-discrimination
groups; work with non-governmental organizations; speak out against
bigoted politicians; and encourage international cooperation against
hate crimes.
These are exactly the recommendations of the Jewish Anti-Defamation
League, architect of hate crimes worldwide. Hate law advocates work
with steady and quiet aggression to accomplish these goals.
The state of Alabama provides an example. This state passed state
hate laws in 1994—like some 43 other states who passed hate laws
in the nineties. Alabama ’s law didn’t include sexual orientation.
This year’s May 16 is now considered by some “a bellwether
moment for gay rights in the U.S,” because Alabama passed two
pro-homosexual bills in one day—one of them added sexual orientation
to the state hate law.
Alabama lawmakers previously rejected
the addition of sexual orientation to their hate law in 2006.
In 2007 they refused
again. But homosexual activists do not give up. This year they
finally succeeded.
Gay activists boldly admit that they used “stealth strategy” to
defeat conservative resistance in Alabama . One news source indirectly
quotes the openly gay state representative bragging about the silent
campaign. She
said that “Opting for a quiet strategy over media campaigns
and constituent mobilization allows gay rights proponents to make progress
without conservative lawmakers enduring serious political pressure
in their districts…”
The ultimate goal of American hate law activists is a federal law
that would allow the federal government to intervene in “bias-motivated
crimes,” violating states’ rights, and enforce stiffened
penalties for “hate criminals.” As they did in Alabama
, homosexual and ADL activists will continue to work aggressively and
quietly towards this goal.
Lovers of freedom must protest and publicize the injustice
of hate crime laws whenever possible.
We must also continue to protest the Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act, S. 1959, now in Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security
Committee. The House passed it unanimously earlier this year. This
dangerous legislation would set up a federal commission to study “hate” on
the internet. It would probably recommend that Congress restrict “homophobic” hate
speech online—ending online free speech.
The religious right has said and done nothing to oppose S. 1959.
Yet because of initial widespread opposition, largely
generated by the National Prayer Network, and because Democratic
leadership does not want anti-free speech charges brought against them
during the election year, this bill has been put on hold.
This recent report by Sen. Lieberman’s staff, and his protest
to Google, suggests that S. 1959 is far from dead. It might be fast-tracked
under a liberal Democrat President or McCain, whom Lieberman strongly
supports.
Let’s be proactive and kill S. 1959 now! Call the Senate Homeland
Security Committee and your senators. Say: “Please kill the Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Act, S. 1959. America does not
have a documented problem of homegrown terrorism streaming from the
internet.” Call toll free 1-877-851-6437, or toll, 1-202-225-3121.
Harmony Grant writes and edits for National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative
watchdog group.
Let the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith teach you how they
have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.
Learn how ADL took away free speech in Canada and wants to steal
it now in the U.S. Congress. Watch Rev. Ted Pike's Hate
Laws: Making Criminals of Christians at video.google.com. Purchase
this gripping documentary to show at church. Order online at www.truthtellers.org for
$24.90, DVD or VHS, by calling 503-853-3688, or at the address below.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this
topic. Call (503) 631-3808.
National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas,
OR 97015
