This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Atlas Blogged
   Quote of the Day

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

-John Marshall

   Recent Comments
   Categories
   Administrivia

The Neolibertarian Network

Syndicate this site (XML)
XHTML | CSS
Blogarama - The Blog Directory
blog search directory Listed on BlogShares

« Headline of the Day | Main | Turkey, the Kurds, and the E.U. »

December 15, 2006

First Amendment Primer

Sigh. Stop the ACLU is a sometimes interesting site, with sometimes interesting commentary. But other times they represent everything that is wrong about the right wing. Today's example:

CAIR has been successful in silencing the free speech of a fellow blogger and friend of ours.

A free speech issue? Really? Well, there ought to be a law or something to protect free speech, in my opinion. It could say something like

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Need I highlight the first word in some way for the slower part of the population?

(The blogger in question is Vilmar of Right Wing Howler. I am unfamiliar with his writing, but if I were to judge a blog by its title, I'd say he's about as useless as Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. It's not that fine a line between satire and vile hateful stupidity, boys.)

As commenter Jeff Molby noted on the Stop the ACLU article (on December 15th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm):

This isn’t a free speech issue. When he began transacting business with his service providers, he agreed to give them an editorial veto. After receiving a complaint, they are exercising it.

He’s still free to spread his message. I’m sure he can find a more lenient service provider if he feels that his message needs to remain intact.

Exactly. In their knee-jerk response to what they view as an injustice, the right wing blogs I've seen weighing in on the issue seem to have forgotten that first word of the First Amendment. Isn't it supposed to be the left who disagrees with libertarians on issues of private property and the sanctity of legal contracts? I always find these turnabouts entertaining - until I recall how hypocritical and therefore ugly they are.

Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy says she can’t believe this BULLSHIT! She may have a legitimate complaint about how little CAIR Tampa Executive Director Ahmed Bedier has done to fight violence and terrorism by Muslims - I don't know, so for argument's sake I'll grant it to her. But that doesn't change the fact that Bedier was able to point to Vilmar violating Hostgator's terms of service. Getting angry with Bedier and CAIR over Vilmar's reckless comments just doesn't hold water with me. Whose web hosting company is it? Were the terms of service violated? If you're trying to get me riled up about free speech, these are the only two questions that matter to me.

Now, when John Stephenson emailed a list of bloggers (myself included), he wrote:

CAIR has successfully shut down a friend's blog, Vilmar of Rightwing Howler. I'd provide a link, but it would only go to a suspended account. They claimed he was a hate site and quote he advocates the murder of Muslim children. Where did they get this idea? Well, he quoted some Satire from the well known satire site IMAO. I've gathered up quite some angry reactions to this. Most agree that CAIR should put their focus in shutting down all of the jihadi hate sites if they really want to make a difference. People are outraged and urging others to contact his server and ask them why they are afraid of CAIR. Please share with your readers.

Here I have no argument. If Vilmar wants to argue that satire doesn't violate the terms of service, he need only contact Hostgator and explain this to them. Go ahead, get a lawyer, Vilmar. But there is nothing wrong with CAIR asking Hostgator to review the site and consider the terms of service. Not a thing. It's simply not a free speech issue.

Wulf Posted by Wulf on December 15, 2006 at 07:05 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/443

Comments

CAIR also took away Michael Graham's right to free speech on WMAL. ;-)

Posted by: Rammage [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 15, 2006 9:57 PM

I knew this post sounded familiar! Good call.

Posted by: Wulf [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 15, 2006 10:36 PM

You really need to do your research on CAIR before you give them the benefit of the doubt. LGF has been following them for a long time. Also, since when is satire *presumed* to be a violation of any ISP's TOS? You're overbroad in assuming that the default is to deny satirists a platform. What Stop the ACLU is pointing out is that CAIR puts pressure on ISPs, newspapers, citizens, and anything that gets in their way to dry up anti-Islamic viewpoints. And they do it by threatening lawsuits, which can bankrupts a good many folks. How can they do it? Deep pockets -- they're funded by the Saudis. So in terms of free speech, it's a real problem.

Posted by: NoMoreJihad [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 16, 2006 6:49 PM

You really need to do your research on CAIR before you give them the benefit of the doubt.

If I had given CAIR the benefit of the doubt about anything, your comment would at least have something to do with this post. But I didn't. Please read through again.

Also, since when is satire *presumed* to be a violation of any ISP's TOS? You're overbroad in assuming that the default is to deny satirists a platform.

This is exactly the type of knee-jerk bullshit that I was talking about in the article, actually. You bitch and moan about the ISP assuming this and presuming that, but you haven't even taken the time to read what I actually wrote before you start spewing a load of crap at me. I have no idea whether the ISP was even aware that the article in question was meant as satire, and I have taken no position regarding whether they were aware. I even went so far as to encourage Vilmar to explain the satire issue to the ISP in an attempt to get back on line. Christ, did you even read my post?

What Stop the ACLU is pointing out is that CAIR puts pressure on ISPs, newspapers, citizens, and anything that gets in their way to dry up anti-Islamic viewpoints. And they do it by threatening lawsuits, which can bankrupts a good many folks. How can they do it? Deep pockets -- they're funded by the Saudis. So in terms of free speech, it's a real problem.

Stop the ACLU's entire line of argument is based on the notion that Vilmar has had his rights trampled, but the ISP is under no moral obligation to publish Vilmar's writings, whatever their content. Substitute the word "Saudis" with "Microsoft" and your comment above would sound like a raging moonbat lunatic Berkeley communist with no regard for private property rights of corporations. Don't expect me to give one a pass while opposing the other.

Posted by: Wulf [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 17, 2006 12:57 AM

Here's a succinctly titled Agitator post from last year on some earlier sophistry from STACLU.

Posted by: KaneCitizen [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 17, 2006 9:29 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember This Information?