Obama’s State Department (of Relativism): For Free Speech and Against It in Same Sentence

Here’s a tough problem they didn’t teach at Government Spokesman Preparatory School. Within a few hours of the president’s signing of a press freedom bill — with much pomp about his love for the liberty of the media, ironically followed by a refusal to take questions from real live reporters — State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked this:

Pakistan had just made the decision to block certain sites because some carried pictures of Muhammad. How would P.J. Crowley respond? Fortunately, the State Department prepared a statement for him: Crowley’s response tries to balance freedom of speech with political correctness, plus the administration’s policy. Granted, his situation wasn’t easy and he was trying to give a reasonable response (much more so than the snippets appearing in some media make it seem). But what Crowley seems to be saying is that Pakistan has the right to censor the Internet, but that shouldn’t interfere with others having the ability to use it.

And then he hedges on that hedge.

For example, should a picture of Muhammad be “deeply offensive” to non-Muslims? Why? Assuming they wish to show Islam respect, it is in no way against their custom to have such pictures. And, if it is deeply offensive … is that a bad thing?

After all, since everyone knows that saying certain things — sometimes even quoting Muslim texts — is “offensive to Muslims,” those exercising free speech can be said to be engaging in a “deliberate attempt to offend Muslims.”

So when Crowley says that the U.S. government takes a position on saying certain things, isn’t that unwarranted and unprecedented interference with Americans’ right to free speech? And where is the line between “offensive speech” that someone knows in advance will be “offensive” and a hate crime? Indeed, how can anyone even maintain that under the U.S. Constitution there can even be such a thing as a verbal hate crime unconnected with an actual criminal act (assault, murder, arson, vandalism, etc.)?

While each religion can choose to define what deeply offends it, why should it expect everyone else to accept that definition? If that happens, the religion in question (which today generally means only Islam) is thus granted veto power over what everyone else does. And that’s dangerous.

It’s outrageous for Crowley to characterize what is occurring in Pakistan as being “dialogue and debate.” This is a country where Christians are persecuted and murdered (with no Western protest), where members of the Ahmadi sect are discriminated against, and that is a world center of anti-Semitism. Pakistani Christians are often beaten or murdered based on allegations that they have done something “offensive” regarding Islam.

Crowley is of course right in saying governments should safeguard free speech. But all the meaning is drained from this because his “robust legal protections against … hate crimes” include, in most countries, steps that do punish free speech, as per Canada, the Netherlands, and many other places. So how can you deal with this very real contradiction, unless you acknowledge that the mere act of speech — unless it involves a direct threat of violence or other regular crime — is never a hate crime?

By the way, this was taken for granted in American law until a few years ago.

What does a “proactive government outreach to minority religious groups” mean? Does that include apologizing and offering special treatment, or explaining that the customs of Western democratic countries include the ability to draw pictures of Muhammad or show him as a cartoon character on television?

The reporter then asked:

It isn’t Crowley’s job to analyze other countries’ motives, but this question contains an important implication. Once upon a time, we thought there were forces of “progress” and forces of “reaction.” The former wanted democracy, modernization, freedom, equality of women, and not murdering people for alleged heresy. Now, however, if you change the word from “heresy” to “causing offense” or “multiculturalism,” that apparently legitimizes the opposite practices.

Crowley answered with something revolutionary:

In effect: keep the data flowing, but censor anything that offends you. Crowley began with U.S. respect for Pakistani law, but ended by endorsing Pakistani law. The U.S. State Department has proclaimed, in the name of the American government and people, that it is right to restrict “offensive speech.”

The reporter was understandably bewildered:

Crowley finally responded with what he should have said in the first place: The conclusion? The administration’s thinking is confused. On one hand, embracing “old-think,” it supports a universal principle of freedom of expression. Yet on the other hand it endorses the censorship of what any current authority deems to be “offensive speech.”

I fear that this apparent contradiction is a trend in which the Pakistani model will be more and more inculcated into Western societies.