To Myth

Submitted by Peter Herz (United States), Feb 3, 2010 at 06:47

I suppose I look at the Wilders case from an American standpoint. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the press (along with a few other civil rights), which is why some of us get angry because some people are allowed to use what others see as "hate speech" while still others get angry because it is impossible to ban pornography. I suppose that there is a large portion of our country that takes to heart the adage that silencing someone isn't the same as converting him.

So, you may be correct in your analysis. If it is true that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not truly guaranteed in various European constitutions (and I'll have to defer to European commentators on this one), maybe the Wilders case is needed to open up this issue.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".