Re: The 4th Global War on Terror - Deja vu all over again!
I love it when conservatives post opinions that so utterly have the facts wrong that they end up off in la la land. In this case, an article by a 2012 neocon as she says:
"But we should be afraid. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last December, the Obama administration has been working with the OIC to "move to implementation" of U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, an international law that would criminalize criticism of Islam."
WRONG. Forbes posted the same thing and got caught red handed as the State Department responded with the following:
Abigail R. Esman’s Dec. 30, 2011 op-ed, “Could You Be a Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure,” mistakenly states that U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is discriminatory or involves the “defamation” of religion.
First, the resolution does not accept the approach espoused in the “defamation of religions” resolutions, which the United States has opposed for more than a decade. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom declared Resolution 16/18 to be a “significant step away from the pernicious ‘defamation of religions’ concept.”
Second, the resolution calls for prohibition of speech in only one area – the criminalization of incitement to imminent violence. The concept of barring incitement to imminent violence tracks U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, specifically the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, which held that only in very narrow circumstances can speech be limited. The Court said that “constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Subsequent U.S. case law has reaffirmed this ruling and made clear that, underBrandenburg, the government may only restrict free speech when it is specific in its call for violence (or other lawless action) and specifies an imminent timeframe. This test has been the U.S. standard for over 40 years and does not, as Esman writes, place “limitations as well on speech considered ‘blasphemous.’”
Contrary to Esman’s claims, drawing a caricature of the prophet Muhammad that resulted in violence by Muslim extremists would not constitute “incitement to imminent violence” under the Brandenburg test. The incitement to imminent violence test does not provide a heckler’s veto; an individual who finds something insulting may not restrict another’s freedom of expression. Authorities may react to speech that is likely to produce imminent violence, not mere advocacy of violence or provocative speech. Therefore, Esman is not correct in claiming that by supporting criminalization of incitement to imminent violence, the United States has “agreed not to provoke.” The United States was following and promoting its own constitutional standard, as it has been doing in regards to freedom of expression in international fora since the time of Eleanor Roosevelt.
We champion broad protections for freedom of expression and religion for all in the United States and throughout the world.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
U.S. Department of State
Suzan Johnson Cook
Ambassador At Large for International Religious Freedom
U.S. Department of State
I love it when conservatives post opinions that so utterly have the facts wrong that they end up off in la la land. In this case, an article by a 2012 neocon as she says:
"But we should be afraid. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last December, the Obama administration has been working with the OIC to "move to implementation" of U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, an international law that would criminalize criticism of Islam."
WRONG. Forbes posted the same thing and got caught red handed as the State Department responded with the following:
Abigail R. Esman’s Dec. 30, 2011 op-ed, “Could You Be a Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure,” mistakenly states that U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is discriminatory or involves the “defamation” of religion.
First, the resolution does not accept the approach espoused in the “defamation of religions” resolutions, which the United States has opposed for more than a decade. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom declared Resolution 16/18 to be a “significant step away from the pernicious ‘defamation of religions’ concept.”
Second, the resolution calls for prohibition of speech in only one area – the criminalization of incitement to imminent violence. The concept of barring incitement to imminent violence tracks U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, specifically the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, which held that only in very narrow circumstances can speech be limited. The Court said that “constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Subsequent U.S. case law has reaffirmed this ruling and made clear that, underBrandenburg, the government may only restrict free speech when it is specific in its call for violence (or other lawless action) and specifies an imminent timeframe. This test has been the U.S. standard for over 40 years and does not, as Esman writes, place “limitations as well on speech considered ‘blasphemous.’”
Contrary to Esman’s claims, drawing a caricature of the prophet Muhammad that resulted in violence by Muslim extremists would not constitute “incitement to imminent violence” under the Brandenburg test. The incitement to imminent violence test does not provide a heckler’s veto; an individual who finds something insulting may not restrict another’s freedom of expression. Authorities may react to speech that is likely to produce imminent violence, not mere advocacy of violence or provocative speech. Therefore, Esman is not correct in claiming that by supporting criminalization of incitement to imminent violence, the United States has “agreed not to provoke.” The United States was following and promoting its own constitutional standard, as it has been doing in regards to freedom of expression in international fora since the time of Eleanor Roosevelt.
We champion broad protections for freedom of expression and religion for all in the United States and throughout the world.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor
U.S. Department of State
Suzan Johnson Cook
Ambassador At Large for International Religious Freedom
U.S. Department of State
I did have some sort of crush on Vampira though.