Is condoning terrorism protected free speech? The Muslims have scooted under the free speech radar up until now. We've always felt the right to voice opposing opinions was protected speech. But anti-Semitic speech condoning genocide? Isn't that over the line? TM ****************** By Glenn Greenwald - 1/14/15
Forty-eight hours after hosting a massive march under the banner of free expression, France opened a criminal investigation of a controversial French comedian for a Facebook post he wrote about the Charlie Hebdo attack, and then this morning, arrested him for that post on charges of “defending terrorism.” The comedian, Dieudonné (above), previously sought elective office in France on what he called an “anti-Zionist” platform, has had his show banned by numerous government officials in cities throughout France, and has been criminally prosecuted several times before for expressing ideas banned in that country.
The apparently criminal viewpoint he posted on Facebook declared: “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly.” Investigators concluded that this was intended to mock the “Je Suis Charlie” slogan and express support for the perpetrator of the Paris supermarket killings (whose last name was “Coulibaly”). Expressing that opinion is evidently a crime in the Republic of Liberté, which prides itself on a line of 20th Century intellectuals – from Sartre and Genet to Foucault and Derrida – whose hallmark was leaving no orthodoxy or convention unmolested, no matter how sacred.
Since that glorious “free speech” march, France has reportedly opened 54 criminal cases for “condoning terrorism.” AP reported this morning that “France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism.”
As pernicious as this arrest and related “crackdown” on some speech obviously is, it provides a critical value: namely, it underscores the utter scam that was this week’s celebration of free speech in the west. The day before the Charlie Hebdo attack, I coincidentally documented the multiple cases in the west – including in the U.S. – where Muslims have been prosecuted and even imprisoned for their political speech. Vanishingly few of this week’s bold free expression mavens have ever uttered a peep of protest about any of those cases – either before the Charlie Hebdo attack or since. That’s because “free speech,” in the hands of many westerners, actually means: it is vital that the ideas I like be protected, and the right to offend groups I dislike be cherished; anything else is fair game.
It is certainly true that many of Dieudonné’s views and statements are noxious, although he and his supporters insist that they are “satire” and all in good humor. In that regard, the controversy they provoke is similar to the now-much-beloved Charlie Hebdo cartoons (one French leftist insists the cartoonists were mocking rather than adopting racism and bigotry, but Olivier Cyran, a former writer at the magazine who resigned in 2001, wrote a powerful 2013 letter with ample documentation condemning Charlie Hebdo for descending in the post-9/11 era into full-scale, obsessive anti-Muslim bigotry).
Despite the obvious threat to free speech posed by this arrest, it is inconceivable that any mainstream western media figures would start tweeting “#JeSuisDieudonné” or would upload photographs of themselves performing his ugly Nazi-evoking arm gesture in “solidarity” with his free speech rights. That’s true even if he were murdered for his ideas rather than “merely” arrested and prosecuted for them. That’s because last week’s celebration of the Hebdo cartoonists (well beyond mourning their horrifically unjust murders) was at least as much about approval for their anti-Muslim messages as it was about the free speech rights that were invoked in their support - at least as much.
The vast bulk of the stirring “free speech” tributes over the last week have been little more than an attempt to protect and venerate speech that degrades disfavored groups while rendering off-limits speech that does the same to favored groups, all deceitfully masquerading as lofty principles of liberty. In response to my article containing anti-Jewish cartoons on Monday - which I posted to demonstrate the utter selectivity and inauthenticity of this newfound adoration of offensive speech - I was subjected to endless contortions justifying why anti-Muslim speech is perfectly great and noble while anti-Jewish speech is hideously offensive and evil (the most frequently invoked distinction – “Jews are a race/ethnicity while Muslims aren’t” – would come as a huge surprise to the world’s Asian, black, Latino and white Jews, as well as to those who identify as “Muslim” as part of their cultural identity even though they don’t pray five times a day). As always: it’s free speech if it involves ideas I like or attacks groups I dislike, but it’s something different when I’m the one who is offended.
Think about the “defending terrorism” criminal offense for which Dieudonné has been arrested. Should it really be a criminal offense – causing someone to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned – to say something along these lines: western countries like France have been bringing violence for so long to Muslims in their countries that I now believe it’s justifiable to bring violence to France as a means of making them stop? If you want “terrorism defenses” like that to be criminally prosecuted (as opposed to societally shunned), how about those who justify, cheer for and glorify the invasion and destruction of Iraq, with its “Shock and Awe” slogan signifying an intent to terrorize the civilian population into submission and its monstrous tactics in Fallujah? Or how about the psychotic calls from a Fox News host, when discussing Muslims radicals, to “kill them ALL.” Why is one view permissible and the other criminally barred – other than because the force of law is being used to control political discourse and one form of terrorism (violence in the Muslim world) is done by, rather than to, the west? snip https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/...ebook-comments/
** Rich Lowry, Nov 30, 2014 on “Meet the Press” Sunday, National Review editor
Stop trying to make the Ferguson protests something they weren’t. And, just as importantly, stop trying to make Michael Brown, the man shot to death during a fight with police Office Darren Wilson in August, something he wasn’t.
“If you look at the most credible evidence, the lessons are really basic ... don’t rob a convenience store. Don’t fight with a policeman when he stops you and try to take his gun. And when he yells at you to stop, just stop.”
"The vast bulk of the stirring “free speech” tributes over the last week have been little more than an attempt to protect and venerate speech that degrades disfavored groups while rendering off-limits speech that does the same to favored groups, all deceitfully masquerading as lofty principles of liberty."
Sunday, 11 January 2015 On Free Speech, UN and French Rulers Side With Jihadists Written by Alex Newman
" ..... the UN, widely ridiculed as the “dictators club,” has for years been waging a war on free speech worldwide and any criticism of Islam under the guise of advancing what it calls “human rights.” French authorities, meanwhile, have imposed some of the strictest criminal sanctions on controversial speech anywhere in the Western world. The difference between the UN and French government view on free speech and the position of jihadists, then, stems largely from what punishment is appropriate for the “crime,” legal experts observed. ...."
Sunday, 11 January 2015 On Free Speech, UN and French Rulers Side With Jihadists Written by Alex Newman
Pardon the hijack here @algernonpj , but note Alex Newman's use of the word "Jihadist" in place of "Islamic".
That's how in the future, the MSM is going to distinguish these radical Islamic Extremists from the silent billions of ordinary peaceful Muslims.
Look for the word "Jihadist" to appear in all the future texts.
** Rich Lowry, Nov 30, 2014 on “Meet the Press” Sunday, National Review editor
Stop trying to make the Ferguson protests something they weren’t. And, just as importantly, stop trying to make Michael Brown, the man shot to death during a fight with police Office Darren Wilson in August, something he wasn’t.
“If you look at the most credible evidence, the lessons are really basic ... don’t rob a convenience store. Don’t fight with a policeman when he stops you and try to take his gun. And when he yells at you to stop, just stop.”
Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #3Sunday, 11 January 2015 On Free Speech, UN and French Rulers Side With Jihadists Written by Alex Newman
Pardon the hijack here @algernonpj , but note Alex Newman's use of the word "Jihadist" in place of "Islamic".
That's how in the future, the MSM is going to distinguish these radical Islamic Extremists from the silent billions of ordinary peaceful Muslims.
Look for the word "Jihadist" to appear in all the future texts.
Good catch TM
Unfortunately a large number of the silent Moslems, although they themselves would not commit a 'terrorist' act have no problem. i.e. support others who do it. Maybe we could label the 'silent' ones enablers.