While we have kicked the JV & Elvis issue around quite a bit. Albert and I can agree that this is an artistic issue where taste in the literary form of Sarcasm is at issue. Some groups think it is funny while OCA and others find it offensive. I will now argue that the PC slippery slope does put the Constitution in danger. By being overly sensitive and getting our feelings hurt the terms discriminatory and stereotypical have been thrown around. To everyone’s credit nobody that I know of has foolishly used the term “hate speech”.
Now how does expressing your outrage over comedians and shock jocks endanger our freedom of speech? Aside from the slippery slope we have to worry about hate speech legislation. Not the stuff in the US, but the crazy legislation being drafted in the EU.
The proposed regulations would require E.U. governments to impose criminal sanctions against people or groups “publicly inciting violence or hatred . . . directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.” Under the recommendations, conviction on those charges would carry jail terms of up to one year.
There is already criticism that such legislation could rewrite history because some groups may find either their own history or someone else’s offensive. Iran is denying the holocaust occurred. Now if enough people bitch that they find the holocaust offensive or if enough Jews decide they don’t want to remember then all historical record could be erased. The first step in letting history repeat itself is forgetting what has happened.
Tying this new proposed legislation into satire and sarcasm, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed pictures of the Prophet Mohammad which touched off a fire storm of riots and threats by Muslim terrorists. The Muslims claimed that publishing the pictures of Mohammad by non-believers was an insult which of course gave them free license to riot and call for the execution of the editorial writers. As a show of solidarity many US publications and bloggers republished the pictures saying that freedom of speech trumps others being offended. At Viet-Justice we went farther to create our own blasphemy by tossing ridicule at the people rioting in the streets of Europe. I guarantee most Muslims would find it offensive, but this is artistic expression, and protected by the Constitution.
Great, Quan, we know Europe is messed up, but how does that affect us? This affects us through the implementation of Treaties. Treaties are agreements with other countries that do override our constitution. One example was a UN sponsored treaty to ban the ownership of guns by private citizens worldwide. If the US signed on with this treaty it would nullify our 2nd Amendment. The 1st Amendment can be just as easily nullified.
Normally a constitutional amendment is an involved process requiring lots of voting. To ratify a treaty it requires the President, and two-thirds of the Senate, totally bypassing the normal checks and balances put into place. Rumor has it President Bush recently bypassed the Senate in an attempt to setup a North American Union merging the US, Canada, and Mexico as seen in this CNN Video. Treaties can happen without our knowledge and we should be vigilant.
There are a lot of well meaning people out there that believe we as a country do not participate in world affairs to a great extent. One example is the International Criminal Court. Yes it makes sense to go after war criminals, but President Bush along with India’s leader have opposed the ICC since any citizen could be extradited and placed on trial for violating the laws of another country. Stop and think about that for a moment.
Think of the Internet and the telephone today. They break down barriers to communication. In addition they expose us to new things that go beyond what we would see in our local community. Obscenity and pornography easily come to mind here because the Internet does away with “community values” in favor of the least restrictive in the world. But what if you said something that was illegal in another country on the Internet? Today you are protected by the Constitution, unless you travel to that country. China is already trying to find out which of their expatriates are badmouthing the government and such people tend to be held in prison for a long time when they go back to china. The same goes for Iran.
What if tomorrow the US ratifies a treaty with the EU accepting their “hate crime” legislation and if the US is a member of the ICC, you could be snatched out of your home and sent to Europe to stand trial for saying something offensive. The US Government would have to send you away because of the treaty and you would be subject to the laws of that other country. Is that the world we really want to live in? Well that is the slippery slope we are riding on if go overboard with being offended by satire or sarcasm. In Europe, Muslims are complaining that Winnie the Pooh and Piglet are offensive. In England “The Three Little Pigs” was rewritten to “The Three Little Puppies” because Muslims don’t like Pigs. Do you really want to live in that kind of world? Globalization and carelessly accepting what is offensive and hateful will put us there.
You can be offended, that is your right and nobody is telling you that you can’t be offended or that you should keep your mouth shut. Just realize that crying “hate speech” puts all speech in danger since you never know if what you have to say is hateful somewhere else. All speech is hateful. All speech is not hateful. It depends on which side of the line you choose to stand on. There is never any one right answer to anything.