http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=42481
In addition, ACT for America has sent me the below Forbes article by Abigail Esman that tells us how Hillary Clinton's State Department is signing on to a measure that would address "speech that incites". Esman raises the critical point as to "whom would be incited."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure
Here is the bite. It is quite difficult under US law to prosecute someone for speech that incites violence unless you can show a direct result of one's words. For example, if a speaker at a public event pointed out a person, say a black person, and yelled to the crowd, "Kill that guy!", and the crowd proceeds to attack the person, then the speaker can be prosecuted. On the other hand, if a member of the crowd were to kill a black person a week later in another place and tell police he was inspired by the words from the speaker against blacks, that is a much harder case to prove.
What Esman points out is the question of whom is incited to violence. For example, if Muslims riot and commit violence in reaction to what someone says that they perceive as an insult to them, does that mean that the speaker is liable? I would bet my mortgage that the OIC is including that in their program. If the State Department thinks that provision can be safely and constitutionally incorporated into US law, they are crazy.
"If the State Department thinks that provision can be safely and constitutionally incorporated into US law, they are crazy."
ReplyDeleteTrue, that. So what are you worried about?
No UN decision will usurp the U.S. Constitution. If the Obama administration wants to push this issue, with his lap-dog DoJ director Eric, either a change in regime or a Supreme Court decision will send the OIC dream down the tubes. The American people will not stand for this uncontitutional play.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama pushes this issue, with his minions, he is cutting his own throat.
Squid
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteIs there anything in the world that troubles you? You must be the most contented man in the world.
Squid,
ReplyDeleteWhile I tend to agree with you, keep in mind that Obama only needs one more appointment to the Supreme Court.
@ Gary,
ReplyDeleteI too have a concern for the U.S. Supreme Court appointments. But, IO read where there will be no retirements prior to the 2012 election. Why this is so, I do not know.
Squid
A few months ago, there was a meeting at Georgetown Law School to discuss how to criminalize criticism of Islam. One law professor from New York averred that she knew how to do it. The State Department was present at that meeting.
ReplyDeleteRemarks made in the Istanbul Process meetings indicate with great clarity that it is their intention to subject us to criminal and civil liability6 if Muslims blame their riots on our writing.
The first stage to be implemented is contradiction, condemnation & shaming of offenders. Case in point: the AssWholliness of Rep. Murphy in his speech on the floor of the House and letter to Lowe's about the All American Muslim affair.
Between October and December, several posts were uttered & published at http://www.islamexposed.blogspot.com/ including quotes from and links to the relevant UN resolutions. Qutoes and links from the June-Augus issue of the OIC Journal fill out the bill.
The wording changed; the tactical & strategic objectives did not.
There is no practical difference between defamation and negative stereotyping, one expression can be accused of either one.
Ban Ki-moon sid of Fitna that it was hate speech and incitement, not deserving free speech protection.
Anyone who does not get a clue from that statement should do society a service by removing himself from the gene pool.
Many things trouble me Gary. Your paranoid fantasies, however, do not rise high on the list.
ReplyDelete