The John Birch Society :: Truth Freedom Leadership

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:

A Dutch lawmaker concerned about the Islamicization of Holland intends to release a short movie critical of Islamism at the end of this month. Now, however, Internet registry Network Solutions has decided to freeze the domain at which his film was to be accessed.

Follow this link to the original source: "Network Solutions shutters anti-Islamic film site"

COMMENTARY:

Dutch politician Geert Wilders is haunted by the specter of creeping Islamism in his nation. So much so that he created a 15-minute movie critical of Islam called Fitna. But while the oft-threatened, intrepid lawmaker hasn’t been deterred by the murder of fellow countryman Theo Van Gogh by a Moslem fundamentalist, others are characterized more by pusillanimity than principle. A case in point is Network Solutions, which has frozen his movie’s domain name, www.fitnathemovie.com, and linked it to a page stating;

This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation . . . .

This is a chilling example of the stifling of politically-incorrect dissent, one I warned of earlier this year. I wrote:

While the Internet seems like a wild and woolly land of bits and bytes, just as information can be transmitted at the touch of a button, so can it be suppressed . . . .

At the end of the day - and it may be the end of days . . . registrars may even freeze their domains [those of politically-incorrect commentators] . . . They may be consigned to Internet oblivion.

Understand that this action is part of a larger effort to stifle traditionalist commentary, one that will succeed unless culture warriors become a squeakier wheel than those who would silence them. And it’s later than you think.

As many know, traditionalists are rarely hired in the mainstream media. And even when journalists resembling them are present, they’re either tokens or, even more likely, "acceptable conservatives" who wouldn’t dare think outside the box. Of course, there is talk radio, a medium in which traditionalist voices reign unfettered.

That is, for now.

But the future may be different, as there have been efforts to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine," a euphemistically-named piece of legislation if ever there was one. It would effectively eliminate traditionalist talk radio.

More ominously, most Western nations have enacted "hate speech" laws. But don’t let the name fool you; this Orwellian legislation isn’t used to silence people who hate; it’s used to silence people the leftists hate. For example, as I wrote in "How We Will Lose Our Freedom of Speech":

They [voices in the darkness] will mention how Canadians Mark Harding and Hugh Owens were punished for, respectively, criticizing Islam and homosexuality. They’ll cite the story of English schoolgirl Codie Stott, who was jailed on a "racial offense" after requesting to be seated with English-speaking students. Or, they may mention the case of Ake Green, a Swedish pastor who was jailed for criticizing homosexuality in a sermon.

Many believe that our First Amendment renders such trampling of free speech impossible, but the pattern leading to just such a violation has already been initiated.

First, understand that parchment holds no power over a people bent on distorting what is written thereon. Consider the mythical separation of church and state. Despite not being found in the First Amendment, it has been used to justify a militant secularist effort to denude our cultural landscape of historically-present Christian symbols and sentiments. Thus have crosses and nativity scenes been stripped from public property and hymns from schools. And, all the while, Americans sit idly by, as their conception of the "separation of church and state" ranges from believing it’s an amendment to treating it like a Commandment.

How did we come to this? It’s simple: ever since the "separation of church and state" ruling in 1947 (written by Klansman Hugo Black), the phrase has been repeated so often that it’s enshrined in the American psyche, giving the culture-renders public support for social engineering based on a fictitious constitutional dictate.

And the same thing is now happening with hate speech.

As to this, I remember when feminist attorney Gloria Allred discussed the Michael Richards racial-epithet incident on Hannity & Colmes and bellowed, "This isn’t free speech; this is hate speech!" Such proclamations are neither unusual nor innocuous, and, over time, they have an insidious effect. Juxtaposing "free speech" and "hate speech" imbues the American mind with the idea that they are two entirely different verbal species, and, once this disconnect is created, it’s easy to convince people that the latter isn’t protected by the former. Then the stage has been set.

And Americans now grow up being inured to the squelching of "hate speech." My teachers used to instruct, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Children seldom hear that anymore. Now their "self-esteem" (a euphemism for pride) is guarded like a crown jewel, and they’re taught that the great, unforgivable sin is hurting feelings. They then enter universities and, later, workplaces, and encounter speech codes prohibiting hate speech. It’s no wonder that many people believe that it already is illegal (I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly say this). And, of course, if people think something already is illegal, passing laws to make it official is a mere formality.

Then stifling dissent becomes easy. If you hear something you don’t like, simply label it hateful — and your fellow travelers in academia and the media will help — and voila! It’s hate speech, and hence prohibited.

Of course, words can hurt. Thus, my teachers’ maxim was valuable not because it was true in every sense, but because it instilled a tolerance for free speech. And it’s a necessary tolerance, for it’s better to have some people cut by sharp tongues than some tongues cut out by dull statists.

If you don’t believe this, just ask Mark Harding, Hugh Owens, Cody Stott or any of the other victims of the love police.