Mobs in Egypt and Libya will do that, thank you very much. But to give a rough indication of what the sovereign mob will decide…

Offensive:
- cartoons depicting Muhammad
- any criticism of Islam

Not offensive:
- “Freedom go to hell”
- “Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way.”
- “Behead those who insult Islam”
- “Europe, take some lessons from 9/11″
- “Be prepared for the *real* Holocaust”
- “Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer”
(all these slogans were used by Islamists in their 2006 London demonstration against the Danish cartoons)

By even discussing this proposal we are telling the radical Islamic world–kill people, destroy property and you will get whatever you want.

Do you think governments can compel love?

You should send a letter to the Lord Chamberlain’s men, demanding that their senior playwright learn to “use English”. I quote from Henry IV, Part I:

“He writes me here that inward sickness (continued)”
Henry IV, Part I 4.1.31 (Third Arden)

And to James Joyce:

“I wish somebody would write me a loveletter”
Ulysses

So end free speech, lest people hurt the feelings of Muslims by telling them the truth about their religion? Actual love for one’s neighbor is combating all the harm that is done throughout the world, because of Islam.

Just a short while ago, a 14-year-old Christian girl with Down’s Syndrome was facing the death penalty in Pakistan for ‘blasphemy’, but of course we hear nothing about that from the politically correct cultural relativists.

What David Mills fails to note is that the United States is an outlier when it comes to freedom of speech. For example, according to Wikipedia, France (where there is currently a controversy over anti-Muslim cartoons) has the following restrictions on speech:

The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults. The Gayssot Act of 1990 prohibits any racist, anti-Semite, or xenophobic activities, including Holocaust denial. The Law of 30 December 2004 prohibits hatred against people because of their gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

An addition to the Public Health Code was passed on the 31 December 1970, which punishes the “positive presentation of drugs” and the “incitement to their consumption” with up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000.

Newspapers such as Libération, Charlie Hebdo and associations, political parties, and various publications criticizing the current drug laws and advocating drug reform in France have been repeatedly hit with heavy fines based on this law.

France does not implement any preliminary government censorship for written publications. Any violation of law must be processed through the courts. . . .

As part of “internal security” enactments passed in 2003, it is an offense to insult the national flag or anthem, with a penalty of a maximum 9,000 euro fine or up to six months’ imprisonment. Restrictions on “offending the dignity of the republic”, on the other hand, include “insulting” anyone who serves the public (potentially magistrates, police, firefighters, teachers and even bus conductors). The legislation reflects the debate that raged after incidents such as the booing of the “La Marseillaise” at a France vs. Algeria football match in 2002.

Charlie Hebdo is the French magazine that just published the anti-Muslim cartoons.

For another, it would quickly be used to suppress not only “deliberate insulting or defamation” but reasonable criticism and disagreement. One man’s well- and kindly-argued belief that another man is in error can be to that other man insult and defamation, especially if he has no natural appreciation for the free exchange of ideas.

As I said, America is an outlier when it comes to freedom of speech. If the above are the dangers of not having American-style, near-absolute freedom of speech, it is already too late for almost any other country in the world.

I think of myself as close to a free-speech absolutist when it comes to the United States, but I can see why countries with other traditions would not want to follow in our footsteps.

If one were to take this prohibition seriously, one could try affirming that no religion is true (which would insult them all), or that all religions were true (which would insult them all), or that there is no such thing as truth (which would insult them all).

If enacted would not we all have to be silenced? Or is this the idea?