The rare 1st amendment

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation long has pushed for laws to “protect” religion from insult, only to be rebuffed by non-Islamic states. Secretary of State Clinton has diplomatically but firmly held the line on this. And, of course, the Islamic states have seen Obama explain the primacy of free speech, after people offended by the anti-Islamic Innocence of Muslims rioted in Cairo.

But not all western nations have a solid message on free speech. Michael Moynihan points out that many European nations regulate various kinds of political speech:

In Germany and Russia, for example, the printing and selling of Mein Kampf is banned (though Germany has recently considered publishing a version of the book annotated by historians). Holocaust deniers can be prosecuted in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Romanian, Poland, and Luxembourg.

It’s easy to see why some Muslims would call out a bit of hypocrisy here. If the Holocaust is so important that its denial is made a legal offense, why shouldn’t insult to religion similarly be proscribed? Once a nation starts down the road of banning offensive speech, where does the line get drawn? At whose religion or supreme value?

The US is unique, in that our 1st amendment puts a stop to those questions. No one, no one’s religion, no one’s values, no one’s history, is protected from offense. We, and our State Department, can give a simple and consistent answer regarding those who don’t want their religion offended: grow up. In open societies, every one has to put up with verbal offense. In the internet age, it will cross national borders.

And if that means we also have to put up with slime like Michael Brutsch — aka Violentacrez — in some of the darker corners of the internet, it also means reporters are protected in exposing them. Mary Elizabeth Williams explores those dark crevices, and what they mean for young girls.

Update: Zeynep Tufekci makes the argument that Reddit should moderate itself, and pushing on the various boundaries and false boundaries of free speech.