Eroding Constitutional Rights – is it “for the best”?
Americans lost many freedoms as a result of 9/11. At first, many supported the additional security measures, while others warned of a slippery slope. Today I can only imagine how shocked my Constituational Law professor must be at the current situation. When I studied, Skokie, Illinois and Nazi speech was a big deal. Today free speech kills.
As I write, American and other western embassies in the Muslim world are under attack because a poorly made film mocking Islam was uploaded to Youtube. A US ambassador is dead and other Western forces are facing risks. Serious people are calling for voluntary censorship, and others are calling for not-so-voluntary censorship. There are even rumors that the White House asked Youtube whether the clip can be removed under their Terms of Service. They justify censoring this offensive film because it’s value as an art form is overcome by the extreme results, global demonstrations, some deadly, by Muslims against western embassies.
The overwhelming argument against censorship is made best by Daveed Garstein-Ross I agree with him.
“I am all for criticizing the speech contained in this film. The traditional cure for offensive and inaccurate speech under our legal regime is counter-speech. But censorship has significant ramifications that people advocating it are not, in my opinion, fully considering.”