There Will Never Be A N****r At SAE!

Post Reply New Topic

My point is that it isn't happening. It is hate speech and it is allowed. Why allow one type of hate speech but not another one? Just because it's in the bible or koran? If that evil s**t is ok, that means pretty much anything goes. Why ban books like Mein Kampf but not the holy books that are equally horrible? Should people be kicked out of a government-funded institution if they are holocaust deniers? That is extremely offensive to holocaust survivors and their relatives, but people are allowed to be holocaust deniers. I personally prefer that people can give their opinion, that way at least we know who are the bigots, the racists, the fundies.

The First Amendment’s reliance on counterspeech as remedy forces the most marginalized among us to bear the costs of the bigots’ speech. Counterspeech is exhausting and distracting, but if you are the target of hatred you have little choice. “Speak up! Remind us why you should not be lynched.” “Speak up! Remind us why you should not be raped.” You can stay silent, but that internalizes the taunt. The First Amendment tells us the government cannot force us either to remain silent or to speak, but its reliance on counterspeech effectively forces that very choice onto victims of hate speech.

And your point about censoring bleep-words is sort of an argument against ANY censorship at all. Arbitrarily censoring some cusswords is just so silly. We all know what they said anyway. It is really contempt for the viewers, they believe we can't handle a few f***s in a tv show. I live in the Netherlands and the bleeping really only happens on English-language shows, you know, from the countries that are supposed to have the most freedom of speech.

I love it when I call someone childish and they double down on it, without even bothering to address any of my points; it makes things so much simpler.

Okay, I'll give you an easy one; how does your position on speech that you find valueless and intended only to harrass and provoke difer from that of, say, apologists for the Charlie Hebdo attack who said much the same thing?

Free speech fanatics would have us force black students to either shut up and take this abusive behavior, from these rich pampered a**holes, or actively oppose them on their own.

That's BS. College is hard enough without a bunch of completely unnecessary distractions. These students are simply trying to take advantage of a public resource that is supposed to be open and available to all. And they are entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment. In this case, they are entitled to attempt to get their education in reasonably safe, secure environment.

Well, I certainly cannot argue with anything you said, because you really didn't say anything.

I think it's pretty interesting that when you *cite* Supreme Court rulings they're somehow always legitimate and prove that your position is based in some immutable moral principle... but when somebody else cites other SC rulings that happen to clash with your world view they're invalid and akin to supporting slavery or whatever.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

The court has continued to uphold the doctrine but also steadily narrowed the grounds on which fighting words are held to apply. In Street v. New York (1969),[2] the court overturned a statute prohibiting flag-burning and verbally abusing the flag, holding that mere offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words". In similar manner, in Cohen v. California (1971), Cohen's wearing a jacket that said "f**k the draft" did not constitute uttering fighting words since there had been no "personally abusive epithets"; the Court held the phrase to be protected speech. In later decisions—Gooding v. Wilson (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

Gee, it must be swell being you, always being unequivocally and absolutely right, having the surety of a zealot.

Sweetheart, as you've pointed out, I'm a bit slow. If you'd like to point out and underline any actual points, I'll TRY to address them.

All I saw in that last post was a collection of petty, half-veiled ad hominems and snarky BS... But as you've established, I'm slow and childish.

Help a brother out.

Leave it to Dox to insult the whole WP membership.

1. One reason I broadly oppose governmental restrictions on the expression of ideas — even obviously bad, dangerous, and offensive ideas — is the phenomenon I call “censorship envy”: The common reaction that, “If my neighbor gets to ban speech he reviles, why shouldn’t I get to do the same?”

To offer one example, say Congress and the states pass a constitutional amendment allowing a ban on flag burning. It seems to me quite likely, and psychologically understandable, that this will push for greater moves to ban other speech, such as display of the Confederate flag. Such a misplaced desire for equality of repression is a powerful mental force, and it’s one way in which narrow speech restrictions can end up leading to broader ones.

But beyond this, even if the envy doesn’t lead to broader speech restrictions, that itself is dangerous to society. Say (as is likely) that, even if an anti-flagburning amendment passes, any move to similarly ban the Confederate flag fails. Display of the Confederate flag will then likely rankle people even more, creating more offense and more division.

Right now, when people — mostly blacks, I suspect — are deeply offended by what they see as a symbol of racism and slavery, the legal system can powerfully tell them: “Yes, you must endure this speech that you find so offensive, but others must endure offensive speech, too. Many people hate flag burning as much as you hate the Confederate flag, but the Constitution says we all have to live with being offended: We must fight the speech we hate through argument, not through suppression.”

Yet what would we say when flag burning is banned but other offensive symbols are allowed? “We in the majority get to suppress symbols we hate, but you in the minority don’t”? “Our hatred of flag burning is reasonable but your hatred of the Confederate flag is unreasonable”?

If you were black and saw the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery and racism — and, rightly or wrongly, millions of people do — would you be persuaded by these arguments? Would you feel better about America because of them?

Or conversely, say that a “hate speech” exception was recognized: Censorship envy would create considerable pressure to likewise create an exception for speech seen as expressing anti-American hatred. Indeed, as I noted before, former congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson has already called for an anti-flag burning amendment partly on the grounds that “while the First Amendment protects free speech, it offers no protection for hate speech” — a legal error, to be sure, but if “hate speech” were indeed unprotected, the congresswoman’s argument would likely have a great deal of public traction.

2. This is also one of the reasons (though not the only one) why I oppose European-style “hate speech” laws, bans on Holocaust denial, bans on praising terrorists, and the like, and why I think the recent French crackdown on speech that praises the jihadist slaughters is misguided.

One recurring argument from Muslims who want the cartoons legally suppressed is that European laws prohibit other kinds of speech offensive to other groups — for instance, Holocaust denial, which is often restricted chiefly because it’s seen as implicitly or explicitly anti-Semitic — and that Muslims should get the same treatment. In practice, those other prohibitions don’t get used that often, and European speech is actually more free than the laws would suggest. Nonetheless, the laws’ presence does make possible the argument I describe. And I suspect it does make many Muslims feel even more aggrieved than they would be by the cartoons themselves, since they are also now aggrieved by what they see as discriminatorily enforced laws.

Consider, just as one example among many, Norwegian Penal Code §§ 135 & 135a:

§ 135. Any person who endangers the general peace by publicly insulting or provoking hatred of the Constitution or any public authority or by publicly stirring up one part of the population against another, or who is accessory thereto, shall be liable to fines or to detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

§ 135 a. Any person shall be liable to fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years who by any utterance or other communication made publicly or otherwise disseminated among the public threatens, insults, or subjects to hatred, persecution or contempt any person or group of persons because of their creed, race, colour or national or ethnic origin. The same applies to any such offensive conduct towards a person or a group because of their homosexual bent, life-style, or inclination.

These belong to the family of restrictions on “hate speech” and “incitement to hostility” that Europeans (and some Americans) sometimes praise as a model “reasonable” alternative to America’s speech protections. But look how broad they are: If you “endanger[] the general peace” by “publicly stirring up one part of the population against another,” you can go to prison. If you disseminate a communication that “insult[s]” “any group of persons because of their creed,” you can go to prison. My reprinting the original Mohammed cartoons, for instance, would potentially be a crime.

Now many Muslims are offended enough by the cartoons on their own — but at least in America we can tell them to join the club: American Christians have no legal protection from anti-Christian speech, American Jews have none from anti-Semitic speech, American blacks have none from racist speech, Americans generally have none from anti-American speech. What can Norwegians tell them, other than (1) “Sorry, the laws don’t protect you,” (2) “Okay, we’ll enforce the laws to suppress speech that you perceive as insulting,” or (3) “These are bad laws, we’re glad that they’ve rarely been used, we’re sorry they were ever enacted, and we are going to repeal them right away” (my preferred suggestion, though not one likely to be implemented, and one that would still be understandably offensive to many Muslims, since the laws’ repeal would have been triggered by speech that’s offensive to Muslims)?

3. And of course censorship envy is such matters is hardly limited to Muslims. Consider this 2008 Daily Mail (UK) story:

A leading art gallery is being taken to court over claims that it outraged public decency by displaying a statue depicting Christ with an erection…

A private prosecution has now been launched … [claiming] that the gallery has both offended public decency and breached Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

The maximum penalty for outraging public decency is six months’ imprisonment and a £5,000 fine.

The documents claim that the foot-high sculpture was ‘offensive and disgusting’ and ‘likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to Christians and those of other faiths’….

The prosecution has been launched by Emily Mapfuwa, 40, an NHS administrator from Brentwood, Essex, who read about the exhibition in newspapers. ‘I don’t think this gallery would insult Muslims in this way, so why Christians?’ she said….

I think this is pretty vulgar stuff, but should clearly be protected against legal punishment. It would be in the United States, and it ought to be in other democracies — religions and religious figures are proper subjects for debate and commentary, both rational verbal debate and commentary, and the subtle commentary that can be offered by art.

I also think the Supreme Court was right in Cohen v. California to reject the argument that some commentary can be barred with no free speech problems on the grounds that it’s vulgar, or offensive because of its form rather than its content: There are no legally administrable lines — at least of the sort that are likely to survive pressure for expansion — that would distinguish impermissibly vulgar criticism from permissible criticism. Fortunately, as best I can tell, English courts rejected the complaint. (Whatever one might say about the propriety of huge discretionary grants going to galleries that include offensive speech, the issue here is criminal punishment, not withdrawal of discretionary funds.)

And the incident helps illustrate the force of censorship envy. When speech hostile or insulting towards one religion or symbol is suppressed by government action (as has been urged by many in Europe and Canada with regard to the Muhammad cartoons), or by self-censorship in the face of threatened violence, what happens when other groups are similarly offended? Their sense of outrage — and of entitlement to similar suppressive power — is increased, because they are now outraged by the perceived unequal treatment as well as by the original offense.

So again either the other speech will be suppressed, too. Or the other speech won’t be suppressed, in which case the offended groups will become even more offended — and so an attempt to prevent offense and maintain social harmony (which is how the original restriction is often justified) will have exacerbated offense and reduced social harmony.

University of Oklahoma President David Boren has expelled two students for leading a racist chant. These students’ speech was indeed quite repugnant, but for reasons I discuss here, it’s protected by the First Amendment.

And here’s one reason why. Consider the president’s statement to the students: “You will be expelled because of your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” Similar things could be said about a vast range of other speech.

Students talking to each other about a student group event about how Hamas has it right? (The Charter of Hamas, recall, expressly says, “The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.’ (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”) Why, that could be labeled leading an anti-Semitic and exclusionary discussion that, once it’s publicized on campus, creates a hostile educational environment for Jews.

Black students talking to each other about how all whites are racist, and white cops — and maybe other whites — should get shot? Again, that could be labeled racist and exclusionary speech that, when publicized, can create a hostile educational environment for whites.

Students talking about what a horrible, oppressive religion Islam is, or Scientology is, or Catholicism is, or conservative Christianity is, and how no-one should associate with people who have such evil religious views? Could be called religiously bigoted and exclusionary discussion that, when publicized, can create a hostile educational environment for members of that group. To be sure, this hypothetical doesn’t include discussion of violence — but president Boren seems to think that even this isn’t required for expulsion, so long as the speech is bigoted and “exclusionary.” And the rhetoric of “hostile educational environment,” when it has been used to try to restrict speech on campuses, has never been limited to speech that mentions violence.

Likewise, students talking about how they think homosexuality is evil, and that homosexuals shouldn’t get equal treatment? Could be called bigotry based on sexual orientation and exclusionary statements that, when publicized, can create a hostile educational environment for gays. Students talking about how women are inferior to men, or men are inferior to women — same thing.

And I take it that open membership in groups — including off-campus groups — that espouse actually or allegedly racist, religiously bigoted, antigay, sexist, etc. views would be covered as well. Surely a student’s membership in the KKK, if other students learn about it, will lead them to infer that the student is racist just as much (if not more than) the singing of a racist song would. Likewise, a student’s membership in a group that endorses the Hamas Charter, a religious organization that harshly criticizes homosexuality, an organization that believes whites are inferior or morally corrupt, and so on.

There is, as I’ve mentioned before, no First Amendment exception for supposed “hate speech.” But if there is such an exception, there certainly is no First Amendment foundation for distinguishing speech that is actually or supposedly anti-black from speech that is anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, anti-women, or anti-men. If the University of Oklahoma president’s position is accepted as legally sound, then there’d be no legal basis for protecting the other kinds of speech while expelling students for this sort of speech.

And what I call “censorship envy” will make it all the more likely that there will indeed be calls for expelling students who express those other views. Right now, for instance, Jewish students who have to deal with their classmates’ holding anti-Semitic views, and expressing them to each other, may rightly assume that such speech is protected by the First Amendment and the university can’t expel the anti-Semites. But if it becomes accepted that a university can expel people who express racist views about blacks, why wouldn’t many Jewish students call for expulsion of students who express (even just to each other) anti-Semitic views? Indeed, many students might think that they would be chumps for failing to demand such expulsion, after they’ve been taught that such speech victimizes them by creating a “hostile educational environment” that can be remedied by expelling bigoted students. And that’s just one example.

Moreover, this surely wouldn’t be limited just to people who use epithets — president Boren’s statement speaks generally of the viewpoint of the speech (“racist and exclusionary”) and not just the particular words that were used. Nor would it be limited to things that really are contemptible; as we’ve all seen in past years, “hate speech” and “hostile educational environment” is a label that is cheerfully thrown around, to refer to criticisms of illegal immigration, to people deliberately trampling the Hamas flag, and much more. To quote Justice Jackson in West Va. Bd. of Education v. Barnette (1943), First Amendment law is “designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.”

One year ago, during tumult over the "Innocence of Muslims" video, a series of academics suggested that we Americans cling too tightly to our concept of free speech, and that we should be open to alternative views — including the views of people who urge laws criminalizing blasphemy in order to protect religious sensibilities. I explored that view by examining a full year of instances of blasphemy prosecutions across the globe. My point was this: if there are values and norms we should consider, how do they look in practice? I concluded that anti-blasphemy laws are most often used as a tool of systematic abuse of religious minorities and other powerless and despised groups.

What's changed in a year?

As you will see below, the practice of blasphemy laws hasn't changed. But the call for them to be imposed in the West has subsided a bit. The King of Saudi Arabia — which is ostensibly an ally, at least during those moments when it's not beheading people for sorcery — demanded an international anti-blasphemy law in the past year, and the Arab League continues to call for them, although the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has backed off of the issue. But the UN seems less receptive than it once was. In fact the United Nations' special rapporteur on freedom of religion expressly called out the connection between apostasy and blasphemy laws and the abuse of religious minorities.

Calls in academia have been less frequent, but are not unknown. For instance, Howard University School of Law hosted a presentation by Dr. Qasim Rashid, who argues that the easy transmission of communications over the internet justifies restrictions on offensive speech when such speech may inflame people across the world. He advocates using the model of "cyber-bullying" laws to address speech offensive to religious sensibilities. This is clever; in framing the issue as one of giving offense over the internet, Dr. Rashid may find support from sectors of academia calling for restriction of free speech rights online. The view that online speech is a special case that justifies censorship is shared by — for want of a more derisive term — some mainstream academics, who like Dr. Rashid frame it as a right to be free of certain kinds of online offense.

If calls for anti-blasphemy laws have slackened, enforcement of those laws has not.

October 2012

Pakistan: A 16-year-old boy was charged with sending blasphemous text messages, his mother was immediately suspended from her job, and after the family fled a mob hauled their possessions from their home and set them afire. "Police at the Mobina police station where the case was lodged said, 'How can we arrest a mob for they are the ones who are among the complainants.'" Meanwhile, Christian pastor Karama Patras was arrested for blasphemy after a mob attacked his home upon the rumor that he blasphemed Islam during a Bible study there. Pastor Patras, taken into "protective custody," was more fortunate than Sajjad Hussain, who was shot to death by two men after he was acquitted of blasphemy based on lack of evidence.

Egypt: Alber Saber Ayad was one of many Coptic Christians charged with "defamation of religion" under Egypt's new government. He was arrested after an angry mob stormed his house. Ayad's prosecution arose from him asking questions like “How do I know who the true God is?”

Turkey: Pianist Fazil Say stood trial for "insulting religious values" for a series of statements on Twitter. "The staunch secularist has also regularly criticised the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), accusing it of having a secret agenda to Islamise Turkey."

Poland: Poland's Supreme Court ruled that heavy metal musician Nergal is subject to blasphemy charges — and a potential two-year prison sentence — for ripping a Bible onstage.

Indonesia: Alexander Aan, an atheist blogger, appealed his two-year-six-month prison sentence imposed for writing things like "God doesn't exist." There is no appeal for his brutal beating by a mob.

November 2012

Pakistan: Upon rumors that a teacher distributed blasphemous materials to students, a mob torched a school for girls and the headmaster was arrested for blasphemy. The headmaster was remanded to custody at the demand of clerics despite a lack of evidence that he had anything to do with the alleged lessons. Meanwhile, Hazrat Ali Shah — accused of blasphemy by his village and his own family — was sentenced to death, a ten-year prison sentence, and a fine amounting to approximately $1,700. On the brighter side, charges were finally dropped against Rimsha Masih, an illiterate and mentally impaired 14-year-old from a religious minority accused of desecrating a Koran.

United Kingdom: British Muslims asserted that passing anti-blasphemy laws is necessary to combat "Islamaphobia."

Egypt: An Egyptian court sentenced seven Coptic Christians to death in absentia for their alleged role in "the Innocence of Muslims."

December 2012

Turkey: Turkish authorities fined a TV station for offending religion for showing a Halloween episode of the Simpsons in which Ned Flanders is shown taking orders from what he thinks is the voice of God.

Egypt: Alber Saber Ayad, mentioned above in October 2012, was sentenced to three years in prison for criticizing organized religion in a video.

Pakistan: A 22-year-old jailed for blasphemy died mysteriously in custody. Meanwhile, Professor Iftikhar Khan got into a dispute with his nephew over real property; his nephew accused him of blasphemy and he was arrested. Also, after a mentally unstable man was arrested on accusations of burning the Koran, a mob stormed the police station, liberated him, beat him to death, and set fire to his body. This is not to be confused with the July 2012 incident in which a mob carried a mentally unstable man from police custody upon allegations that he burned the Koran, beat him to death, and set him on fire. That was a completely different province.

Netherlands: After the Dutch Parliament decriminalized blasphemy, a Somalian radical Islamist group threatened "major consequences."

Yemen: Yemeni authorities sought to execute a blogger and force his divorce and for "only believing in Quran as the main source of Islamic rules . . . ignoring the Sunnah and consequently of retreating of Islam."

Saudi Arabia: Novelist Turki al-Hamad was arrested for blasphemy for comparing the strict social controls of Islam to the strict controls of Nazism. They sure showed him up.

January 2013

Pakistan: Ghulam Ali Asghar was charged with blasphemy for misquoting a Hadith — that is, a saying of Muhammad — in the Punjabi language. However, he was convicted of offending religious feelings and sentenced to ten years in prison. Meanwhile Sherry Rehman, Pakistan's envoy to the U.S. — who, as I mentioned in last year's coverage, was subject to death threats over her opposition to blasphemy laws — was charged with blasphemy in Pakistan over comments she made in a 2010 television interview. Also, Barkat Masih — a Hindu who converted to Christianity — saw his death penalty for blasphemy overturned by Pakistan's high court. Masih was accused of blasphemy when in the course of his job as a security guard he prevented several Muslims from entering his employer's office to steal papers related to a property dispute. They accused him of blasphemy.

Russia: The head of the Russian Orthodox Church called for blasphemy prosecutions, defending the incarceration of the group p**** Riot.

February 2013

Kuwait: Atheist blogger Abdel Aziz Mohamed Albaz was arrested and charged with blasphemy and sentenced to a year at hard labor.

Pakistan: Four employees of a printing press were arrested for blasphemy. The book they were loading into their truck when arrested is about the minority Ahmadi faith shared by the men. Meanwhile, Christian pastor Karma Patras was released; he had been jailed for four months on the blasphemy accusations of Muslims who heard him preaching about Christ at a funeral.

March 2013

Pakistan: Reacting to allegations that a Christian blasphemed Mohammed, a Muslim mob torched 200 homes in a Christian neighborhood. In a separate incident, police rescued a mentally ill man from a mob — and arrested him for blasphemy — when he was accused by children of burning pages from a Koran.

Egypt: An Egyptian court rejected the appeal of two Coptic Christian children, 10 and 9 years old, imprisoned since April 2012 on a blasphemy charge. Also, an actress was accused of blasphemy and investigated by prosecutors for saying that Mohammed's wife was raised by a Jewish tribe.

Belgium: A Belgian court convicted a man and sentences him to four months in jail for "racist hate speech" for tearing up a Koran in front of a group of Muslims.

April 2013

Saudi Arabia: A Shi'a cleric in this Sunni-majority country was sentenced to death for blasphemy.

Pakistan: A Christian man — accused by Muslim neighbors of interrupting their singing to make blasphemous remarks — was acquitted and his death sentence lifted after six years in prison.

Russia: Russia's parliament preliminarily approved a bill making it a crime to offend religious feelings.

Bangladesh: Mobs took to the streets, infuriated by writings of atheist bloggers, demanding enactment of anti-blasphemy laws. They shout "God is great – hang the atheist bloggers." Bangladeshi police arrested three atheist bloggers. Bangladesh's Prime Minister took the position that the country's defamation of religion law — which allows a ten-year jail sentence — should be sufficient to protect religious feelings.

Egypt: Pianist Fazil Say, mentioned above, was given a suspended sentence for blasphemy. Humorist Bassem Youssef was arrested and charged with offending religion after satirizing President Morsi.

Indonesia: Four teenagers were arrested for blasphemy for dancing to a Maroon 5 music video during a prayer.

Malta: A State Department report revealed that Malta prosecuted 99 people for blasphemy against the Catholic Church in the last year, down from 119 the previous year.

May 2013

Pakistan: The Chinese manager of a construction project was cleared of blasphemy charges, but only after a mob attacks his offices.

Bangladesh: 27 people died in clashes between police and protestors demanding anti-blasphemy laws.

Egypt: A court increased the sentence of a Coptic Christian teacher, accused by her students of blasphemy. Another court sentenced a blogger to jail for "openly denigrating the religious values held by a certain portion of the population."

Australia: Australian National University forced a student paper to destroy an issue with a satirical infographic about the Koran, citing international violence against blasphemy.

June 2013

Pakistan: Rimsha Masih, the 14-year-old girl falsely accused of blasphemy, fled to Canada as she and her family continued to suffer death threats. Professor Junaid Hafeez was accused of blasphemy for words on Facebook; for representing him, his lawyer received death threats. Local bar groups severed ties with him.

Egypt: Amnesty International reported on the increasing prevalence of blasphemy charges against religious minorities in Egypt. Meanwhile, a court sentences a Muslim preacher to jail for tearing up a Bible during an anti-U.S. protest. Another court convicted a Coptic Christian lawyer in absentia on allegations he mocked the Koran at a law library.

Syria: Rebels summarily executed a 15-year-old boy for blasphemy.

Russia: The Duma unanimously approved the final version of the law criminalizing “public actions expressing clear disrespect for society and committed with the goal of offending religious feelings of the faithful.”

July 2013

Pakistan: A Christian was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to life in prison despite his accuser recanting. Protestors demanded his execution. He was convicted on allegations he sent blasphemous text messages. Days later a Christian couple was arrested for blasphemy on the same theory. Meanwhile a man deemed mentally unfit to stand trial for the past four years was scheduled to return to trial on charges that he burned the Koran.

August 2013

India: A novelist was arrested for blasphemy upon an accusation that his latest novel portrays the Hindu god Lord Ganesha in an offensive manner.

Pakistan: Muslim cleric Khalid Chishti — who admitted to making false blasphemy accusations against 14-year-old Rimsha Masih, leading to death threats and incarceration — was acquitted and released when prosecutors failed to present evidence against him. An attorney fled his latest hiding place after Islamic militants discovered it; he has been subjected to death threats because of his opposition to blasphemy laws and his relationship to a cousin accused of blasphemy. His cousin, Aasia Bibi, was moved to a different prison after the Taliban assault her previous prison, where she was awaiting imposition of her death sentence for blasphemy.

United Kingdom: Broadcasting officials fined an Islamic TV station after a host tells the audience that Muslims have a right and duty to murder blasphemers.

September 2013

Pakistan: Authorities banned "the nation's first gay website" as blasphemous. Meanwhile police arrested a woman for blasphemy for saying she's a prophet. In another village, dozens of Christian families who have clearly been paying attention to what country they live in fled their homes after their pastor was accused of blasphemy. A Pakistani high court reversed a lower court finding of blasphemy against a columnist who had written that Mohammed's respect for women was unmatched in history; critics said it implied Mohammed had secular values. Pakistani authorities, perceiving issues with the application of blasphemy law, decided that more killing may help and contemplated a law imposing the death penalty on people who make false accusations of blasphemy.

Bangladesh: Four of the atheist bloggers who inspired riots earlier in the year are indicted for making derogatory comments about Islam and Muhammad. A fifth blogger was not charged on account of having been hacked to death by a mob.

October 2013

Pakistan: The family of a mentally ill man asked a court to convict him of blasphemy. “He has insulted our religion and anyone doing that should be sternly dealt with,” said a family member. The man faces life in prison.

Qatar: Legislators drafted a model law for Islamic countries to ban blasphemy. “The main feature of the draft is that it gives every state the right to put on trial those who abuse and hold in contempt religions even if they are outside the country.”

That Was The Year That Was

These are the values that advocates of blasphemy laws would have us accept: use of state power to enforce religious orthodoxy, suppression of political and religious minorities, and the rule of law employed to channel mob violence against the powerless.

As I said last year:

It is right and fit that any nation be prepared to examine its own values, and evaluate competing ones. But I feel no qualms whatsoever at rejecting the competing values embodied in that year of blasphemy. Instead, I will stand by the values embodied in the modern interpretation of the First Amendment. When others advocate that America ease protections for free expression to ease international relations or to protect feelings and sensibilities or to move towards some imagined international consensus or to achieve "progress," I will point to this year and ask: do you truly grasp what values you are promoting, and what values you are abandoning?

The people who support anti-blasphemy laws and anti-blasphemy norms should be regarded accordingly.

'Cop killer' song is protected. The American Civil Liberties Union even publicly defended this as free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop_Killer_(song)

Vice President Quayle branded 'Cop Killer' 'obscene', sound familiar ?

Bob Marley's, "I shot the Sheriff" too promotes killing police.

You think? I never read it as an endorsement. The fact that the man didn't kill the deputy, if that is even a fact, won't save him. He killed the Sheriff so he'll hang. He claims that he shot the Sheriff is self defence, but even if that's true it won't save him either. Every word he says in his defence is useless, and he knows it. Besides, it would be a glaring anomaly in Marley's oeuvre if it was an endorsement of cop killing. His songs are mostly about peace and love and all of that.