On Liberty, Free Speech, and Rioting

Reliapundit made some interesting observations in his comments to my earlier discussion of David Irving, the Holocaust denial laws, and the free speech issues around the world in light of the Islamist threats against those who enjoy the inalienable right that we in the US take for granted. He notes that the Holocaust denial laws had a purpose following the Second World War in order to hasten the denazification of Europe and wonders whether it is time to loosen the restrictions. It might be time to revisit those laws because they've outlived their usefulness. Do we want people to feel that they've got the right to say things that are unpopular without being criminalized, even when talking about the Holocaust? Yes, the problem is that some of those who are talking Holocaust denial are also talking about committing genocide into the future - the Iranian mullahs and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for example.

[T]hink of it this way: we might have to "de-islamicisize" a large part of the world in order to truly end ww4. that might mean banning radical mosques and and any mullah's sermons which incite genocidal terror.

[T]here is a sound basis for this: incitement isn't free speech; it crosses the line.

There certainly is legal doctrine to support restricting free speech when it crosses the line. Does Holocaust denial meet that level? I don't think so. It hasn't in the US, though the Holocaust denial laws in other countries does criminalize that behavior, and those laws would probably fail to meet the scrutiny of a US Constitutional analysis. However, inciting others to violence is a permissible limitation on speech.

We're at an interesting crossroads where the incitement to violence is in the course of religious observance. Are we going to separate out the sermons preaching jihad and violence against the infidels given at radical mosques from the prayers? Should we want government to make that determination? I don't feel comfortable doing that. Yet, that may be the next step in some parts of the world as they're faced with militant Islamists operating out of mosques around the world (and largely funded by our friends the Saudis, Egyptians, and the UAE). Europe certainly seems headed down that road, and those same militant Islamists will point to the Holocaust denial laws as a way to impose their own vision on free speech while holding that their own speech is unfettered because it would violate their free exercise of religion.

Instapundit weighs in thusly:

I should also note that this further exacerbates the "censorship envy" of the radical Muslims -- with European countries happy to punish some speech that is regarded as beyond the pale, the discussion has shifted from whether censorship should exist at all to when it should be justified. This is yet another reason why a general rule in favor of free speech is actually better for ensuring social peace than a set of rules prohibiting offensiveness.

Mickey Kaus sees the dichotomy between supporting the imprisonment of Irving and the censorship of the cartoon representations and wonders how some folks are reconciling the diametrically opposite positions [they'll try to spin, but they really can't.]

Meanwhile, Ed Morrisey notes that the cartoon jihad has turned the mirror on practicing Muslims. Some are wondering at the damage done by those who riot in their religion's name, but are being drowned out by the militant Islamists:

In fact, most Muslim journalists who have criticized the response to the cartoons find themselves either in jail or facing arrest, and the article itself provides a very telling look into why. The isolation and persecution of these journalists show that the riots and demonstrations represent mainstream Islam, despite the multicultural pablum given by most pundits over this eruption. Friends and relatives of these reporters remain silent for fear of violent retribution. A significant moderate faction within Islam has been cowed into almost-complete silence by the ascendant violent and radical factions.

Further appeasement of the latter means that the moderates will only lose more ground. The Islamists who exploited the cartoons to generate political capital for themselves have won a tremendous victory, and those Muslims who may have been on the fence before this issue will no doubt find themselves drawn to the faction with the most momentum. One measure of this victory has been the reticence of the Western media, especially the American media, to even show the cartoons to its readers before condemning them as offensive. The media moguls could take a lesson from the Muslim journalists about editorial choices:

Mr. Momani expressed exasperation when asked why he printed the cartoons. He insisted that it was the work of journalists to inform, and that he did so after speaking to many people who were outraged without ever seeing the cartoons.

Ed also notes that the Irving prison sentence effectively turns Irving into a martyr for his cause.

UPDATE:
Cox and Forkum are definitely gonna get fatwa'd over this.

Technorati: Buy Danish "jyllands-posten mohammed" "muhammad cartoon" embassy torchings "muhammad image archive", Bush, china, censorship, dictatorship, repression, google, microsoft, yahoo, dont be evil