Defending the Right to Offend

The never-ending assault on free expression

On December 9, 2010, the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine,Reason.com, and Reason.tv, held an event celebrating free speech at New York City's The Box and commemorating adult filmaker John Stagliano's victory over federal obscenity charges (go here for our coverage of that spectacular waste of taxpayer dollars). The idea behind the event was to draw attention to Reason's ongoing work in defense of free expression and to call for a new free speech movement that reaches beyond traditional categories of left and right. What follows is a text written for the occasion by Michael C. Moynihan.

Living in an era that forces editorial cartoonists into witness protection, in a culture that barely bats an eye when the fed­eral government prosecutes "indecent" films, the free speech battles of the past seem almost quaint by comparison. Recall that in 1968, a jury huffed that I Am Curious: Yellow, a plodding Swedish film that succeeded in making sex unsexy, was "utterly without social value." The decision was soon overturned on appeal, the forecasted moral collapse failed to materialize, and Swedish embassies across Christendom were left unmo­lested. Andres Serrano’s photograph "Piss Christ," the Brooklyn Museum’s “Sensation” exhibit, Robert Mapplethorpe’s bullwhip all provoked pickets, editorials, angry letters—and they all provoked debate.

In 1989, when Iran’s theocracy suborned the murder of novelist Salman Rushdie for having written a supposedly blasphemous book, The Satanic Verses, only a handful of intellectuals, habitués of both left and right, attacked the author for being impolite to "a billion" religious adherents. Author Roald Dahl whimpered that “In a civilized world we all have a moral obligation to apply a modicum of censorship to our own work in order to reinforce this principle of free speech.” Twenty years ago this was a shockingly contrarian sentiment, today it’s depressingly de rigueur.

So here we are, a few dozen years after the Meese Commission and The Satanic Verses controversy. When South Park sarcastically shielded the image of Mohammad by forcing him to wear a bear costume, its creators had to beef up their security detail and those of us who expressed solidarity were contacted by concerned FBI agents. A mild mannered Danish newspaper editor went underground after publishing twelve anodyne caricatures of the Prophet, while dozens died, buildings burned, artists went into hiding, and one newspaper issued a groveling apology for having reprinted the im­ages. This year alone, a Swedish cartoonist that sketched Mohammad as a dog was physically attacked during a lecture and, the following week, two extremist attempted to burn his house down. The German public broadcast­er ZDF canceled an interview with a Danish cartoonist for fear of provoking extremists.

There is one upside to all of this backsliding on freedom of expression. It can be waved away as a cliché, but it’s true that the more governments, fundamentalists, publishers, and broadcasters curtail the dissemination of information and images deemed “controversial” or “offensive,” the greater interest the public will take. In November, the Los Angeles Times told the story of a Jordanian shop owner who trades in banned books. The most frequently requested titled, he told the Times, was the Rushdie’s Satantic Verses, to which the bookseller mutters in Arabic, “Mamnoueh maqrou­bieh”—all that is forbidden is desired.

Opposition to censorship must be evenly applied, without special consid­eration to group feelings, without ideological exception. When hyperven­tilating activists demand that a planned mosque in Lower Manhattan be relocated out of “respect” (sound familiar?), something that would require government to infringe on the rights of free speech, religion, property, and assembly, it’s incumbent upon those who believe in freedom to stand up to “anti-Islamist” bullies. George Orwell took up arms to fight fascism in Spain, then picked up the pen to defend British fascist leader Oswald Mos­ley against wartime detention. In other words, we don’t get to choose our allies in the fight for free speech.

And the enemies of free speech understand that their ideas cannot compete in the marketplace. John Stagliano’s films may appeal to "prurient interests" but they nevertheless sell by the pallet load, requiring that the full weight of the American legal system be brought to bear against him. If your reli­gion is being mocked and your country has no blasphemy or “hate speech” laws protecting your tender feelings, threats of violence are surprisingly effective.

Reason’s tagline, the perfectly succinct and expository mission statement “free minds and free markets,” references two ideas constantly under threat, and both ideas are limping, wounded after a decade of sustained assault. But tonight we gather to celebrate freedom of speech, which has had an espe­cially rough decade. And I ask you to remember the sage advice of writer Michael Kinsley who, during 2006 Danish cartoon affair, made a point that was once considered obvious: “The limits of free expression cannot be set by the sensitivities of people who don’t believe in it."

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Old Mexican||

    New at Reason: Michael C. Moynihan on Defending the Right to Offend

    Well, there's no right per se to offend, as there is no right to make someone blush. Just as blushing, becoming offended is a personal choice, which means it falls in the category of "it's your fucking problem, asshole, not mine."

  • paloma||

    +1

  • Pip||

    Stop it, OM. You're making me blush.

  • ||

    Well of course there's a right to offend. Nobody ever needed an unalienable protected right to say exactly what you want to hear!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Difdi,

    Well of course there's a right to offend.

    You mean you have a right to be or feel offended, do you not? Because I don't have the right to offend, as being offended is something another person chooses to do.

    It's like saying I have a right to make another person make funny faces... No, I don't! Similary, I do not have a 'right' to offend.

  • Southerner||

    I can summarize this whole article (and most of the comments under it) with the following picture (worth a thousand words at the very least):

    [Image too offensive for even Cracked.com to display]

  • Krazy Kartoon Mohamet||

    I make my return in my latest kartoon with an evil glint in my eye as I stroke my cache of plastique. In the next kartoon I might return as a briar pipe.

  • ||

    ...among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of offensiveness...

  • Rich||

    the forecasted moral collapse failed to materialize

    Perhaps the *forecasted* moral collapse failed to materialize. 8-(

  • Rather||

    opposition to censorship must be evenly applied, without special consid­eration to group feelings, without ideological exception"—Mohamed cartoon and Weigle love the even application

  • Pip||

    "Weigle love"

    I KEEL YOU!!!

  • Rather||

    I drink pee.

    Read my blog.

  • Fuck off Heller||

    I won't fuck you, piss on you, or stick a test tube up your ass-I don't care how much you want to play "conception"

  • Rather||

    I like talking dirty to myself. Teehee.

  • Fuck off Heller||

    you're boring me. Don't you have mice to kill or put up your rectum?
    My last response. http://reason.com/blog/2011/01.....nt_2074489

    Come visit my blog bitch, lol

  • Warty||

    I really wish I lived in a world where I could freely offend certain people who don't fuck sheep on Hit & Run. Alas.

  • Jeff P||

    Who doesn't fuck sheep?

  • ||

  • ||

    ProL, NOW will you stop playing with your "Magnetic Pole" joystick?

    http://www2.tbo.com/content/20.....ts-tampa-/

  • ||

    Soon my plans for Tampa to be magnetic north shall be realized!

  • Sarah Palin||

    I love that I'll be able to see Tampa from my house too.

  • Krazy Kartoon Mohamet||

    hmm, the sheep angle, could be an idea for a new kartoon.

  • Old Mexican||

    "Author Roald Dahl whimpered that 'In a civilized world we all have a moral obligation to apply a modicum of censorship to our own work in order to reinforce this principle of free speech.'"

    Wait, what? People have a moral obligation not to offend others? Now, how can that be achieved, without resorting to mind reading? Someone is always bound to find something offensive, somewhere, sometime. How can that be avoided by "a modicum of censorship"?

    I do have a moral obligation not to cause undue harm on someone's person, liberty or property, but someone's thoughts?

  • robc||

    I would say a moral obligation to not intentionally offend.

    Not harming someone's person, liberty or property is a legal (natural) obligation, which is a subset of moral obligations.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: robc,

    I would say a moral obligation to not intentionally offend.

    Are you a mind reader? If not, how can you know something you say or write WILL offend someone?

  • Meh||

    I don't agree that we have a moral obligation not to intentionally offend, but you take it too far when you try to claim that you can't ever know what will offend someone.

    Example: I can look at most of the women I know and say, "You fucking cunt." and I know they will be offended. Yes, being offended is their choice, but that doesn't mean I don't know what choice they are going to make.

    And regardless of what choice they make, I can certainly intend to offend someone, regardless of whether I am successful.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Meh,

    I don't agree that we have a moral obligation not to intentionally offend, but you take it too far when you try to claim that you can't ever know what will offend someone.

    Oh, I have said no such thing. You CAN know - if you can read minds, that is.

    I can look at most of the women I know and say, "You fucking cunt." and I know they will be offended.

    There's a huge chasm between "knowing" and "guessing."

    And regardless of what choice they make, I can certainly intend to offend someone, regardless of whether I am successful.

    But, in the end, the choice to become offended is theirs, not yours. Your intentions alone do not make yours an immoral act.

  • cynical||

    True. I mean, if you point a gun at someone and fire it, you never really know for sure that you'll kill them. Maybe the bullet is a dud. Maybe the shot goes wide. The very concept of "murder" as separate from "really really really negligent homicide" is farcical.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You *do* have a responsibility not to be a sexist.

    You also have a responsibility to tell the truth, or what you percieve to be the truth, no matter how others will interpret it.

  • Krazy Kartoon Mohamet||

    I must rape Roald Dahl so he will not be raped by a krazy kartoon infidel-raper.

  • But only in a kartoon||

  • T||

    Not so much. Sometimes being intentionally offensive is necessary to make a point.

  • DLM||

    I do have a moral obligation not to cause undue harm on someone's person, liberty or property, but someone's thoughts?

    If not for thoughts we'd only be inanimate lumps of meat. It requires the thoughts of individuals to give meaning to the concepts of 'property' and 'liberty'. The only reason not to respect the thoughts of others are either ignorance (willful or otherwise) or a desire to eliminate those thoughts. Kill thoughts, and you kill the concepts those thoughts support and promote. Why do you think Statists are so keen on controlling the media and education system.

  • V||

    Some thought REALLY ARE bad or have disastrous consequences. The thought that "we" need the State to take care of the poor is one of them.

    I think it is the duty of humans who do get it to eradicate such thoughts - but ONLY through debate and thoughtful arguments.

  • Rich||

  • free expression begins @ home||

    Matt Welch|6.29.10 @ 12:16PM|#
    *I* am the thin-skinned crap weasel. I don't want people spoofing *anyone* here, but since that's not going to happen until we waste precious time overhauling the comments process, then the least I will ask, particularly at this sensitive juncture, is to not spoof Weigel, so as to completely eliminate the possibility of people confusing a spoof for something he is written. If you don't like it, get off my lawn, etc.

  • ||

    I live to fuck sheep. Always have. Always will.

  • Pip||

    Dear Reason,

    Please do not hit me with the banhammer. Thank you in advance.

    Best,
    Pip

  • Rather||

    Dear Reason,
    Don't ban Pip because free speech is important-wait,
    Pip|3.18.10 @ 3:04PM|#
    BTW, I always thought that rctl was just "rectal" in text-speak.
    BAN THE MOTHER FUCKER ;-)

  • Rather||

    I don't understand the difference between public and private.

    Read my blog... my blog... blog.

    *gargle gargle gargle*

  • Fuck off Heller||

    reply to this
    Fuck off|1.6.11 @ 2:20AM|#
    heller and I wouldn't fuck you ever not even with Epi's dick

  • Rather||

    No one has a bigger dick than my Daddy, that's why I won't have sex. It's not because they all reject me. Really it's not.

  • Fuck off||

    Heller why are you obsessed with daddy? Did your two mommies forget to find you a male role model?

  • Pip||

    Jesus! Your faggoty ass has been stinking up this joint since last March?

    I feel the need to take a shower.

  • OO=======D ~~ ~ ~~||

    I live for your kisses!

  • For shit's sake ||

    wipe that up

  • Heller likes sperm||

    Let me!

  • Rather||

    Can I make a joke that makes sense? Stay tuned!

  • Fuck off||

    OO=======D ~~ ~ ~~
    I guess you don't have one? Lol

  • ||

    That's proper as long as you don't eat them.

  • ||

    Or use paper in the process.

  • free expression begins @ home||

    Make sure to read my blog! Read my blog! Blog! Read it! My blog! Read my blog! Blog! Blog! Blog!

  • Lol||

    At least you used the right link to my story: Pow’s and Medieval Lovers-Sleeping Standing Up ;-)

  • sevo||

    Requesting something on a privately-owned site /= censorship.
    What's more is that spoofing may be o0ffensive, but the reason for the request had nothing to do with that; it was a request to stop misrepresenting yourself.

  • Rather||

    Full of crap excuse. I don't know why a coward is called a pussie cause this pussie has been spoofed for a year and I never cried to Reason like the one who can't be named because he might start crying again. BTW, fuck heller

    Woman-up and practice what you preach bitches.

  • Rather||

    And by never cry, I mean cry and complain about it in every thread.

    Practice what you preach! Ban heller for spoofing!

    Read my blog.

  • Heller likes sperm||

    but Heller, I would miss you. You remind me of Boo Radley

  • Rather||

    Has anyone seen my meds? Teehee.

  • Fuck off||

    heller- stop sending me pitures of your dick too.

  • sevo||

    Rather|1.6.11 @ 5:28PM|#
    "Full of crap excuse...."
    Offended, were you?

  • Rather||

    I can't stand the "do as I say not as I do" meme of libertarians.

  • ||

    There's a lot of caselaw on the importance of protecting offensive speech. Whether it's Cohen's "Fuck the Draft" jacket or the Nazis (I hate Illinois Nazis), free speech doesn't work unless we protect the rights of those who really should shut the hell up.

    Also, when you open the door to merely offensive speech being subject to restriction, you allow for one or a few to exercise what's known as a heckler's veto. Bad idea.

    Even in the Miller test for obscenity, there are requirements that the obscene content not have any other virtue (e.g., be of artistic or scientific merit) and that the prurient content as a whole offends community standards.

    That test is problematic, of course, but it illustrates our system's unwillingness to allow merely offensive speech to be restricted in any way.

  • Obama||

    Illinois Nazis? I had a problem with them in all 57 states ;-)

  • Pip||

    You know what offends me about Salman Rushdie? The fact that he can get hot Indian women and I can't.

  • ||

    The true story is that Padma was sent to kill him but fell in love.

  • robc||

    Not just hot Indian women.

    Olivia Wilde too, before she married some prince.

  • Pip||

    Whoa! I gotta write my ass abook!

  • ||

    Really? One would think a freaky looking dude like that would have problems with attracting women. Maybe that price on his head helps him somehow?

  • robc||

    He's apparently a notorious womanizer. He is just one of those guys who is uber-confident and it somehow works. Im sure the death sentence makes him more exciting.

  • robc||

    Scarlett Johansson too.

  • robc||

    Okay, that one may have just been "acting".

  • ||

    Warning: Threadjack.

    Talk about offense, read the comments about David Koch and his gift of $2.5 million to the Brooklyn Academy of Music -

    http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/01/04-3

  • Juice||

    It's funny that this guy sponsored the event that all these people went to see. Apparently they liked the event, but they booed its patron.

    Hey, nice ballet you paid for here. Now fuck off, fascist!!!

  • sevo||

    Juice|1.6.11 @ 5:26PM|#
    "It's funny that this guy sponsored the event that all these people went to see. Apparently they liked the event, but they booed its patron."

    If they offered to cover the costs and give his money back, they might have some moral standing.

  • Why?||

    They think it was theirs to begin with. The booing, in their minds, gave them moral standing.

  • cynical||

    Seems fairly ridiculous. Every dollar he puts into the arts is a dollar he isn't spending opposing them politically. You'd think they would try to encourage him -- but that would only make sense if you assume progs are driven by rationality instead of a mixture of envy, hate, and religious zeal for the technocratic state.

  • ||

    God bless Howard Stern! God bless Larry Flynt! God bless Lenny Bruce! God bless the Muhammed Cartoonists! God bless Kevin Smith! God bless South Park!

  • ||

    Also, God bless Ice-T and the Dead Kennedys!

  • ||

    If God does that he won't be able to keep the tides running on time.

  • ||

    That's why God invented the Moon.

  • Krazy Kartoon Mohamet||

    !INFIDEL!

  • ||

    Let's not pretend that this is not all about Islam and the irrational intolerance of Muslims. Sure if someone says something bad about jesus a few idiots on fox news will whine about it, but that's all. No, this is all about muslims and the threat that THEY alone pose to humanity and the free world.

    If islam cannot change - perhaps a new chapter of the koran is found in a dumptster that takes back all the existing intolerances of the existing koran - then responsible human beings have a moral duty to round up all muslims, stick them in internment camps, give them re-education and a reasonable chance at choosing a new belief system to replace islam. Those muslims who are too brainwashed to change their thought process must be killed off, for the sake of mankind. Killed in the most humane way possible, of course. We also have a duty to say "shut the fuck up" to anyone who invokes the foolish consistency of the Nazis. Islam is not a race, the way the nazis considered jews to be. "Ok I will convert to another religion" was no defense for any jews under Nazi threat. If the jews acted half as crazy and inhumane as today's muslims do, the holocaust would have been entirely justified (except without the torture, slavery, and undue suffering - just give everyone a lethal injection of fentanyl to ensure no pain and guarantee a quick, comfortable death).

    If we're going to be too cowardly or politically incorrect to even acknowledge that islam is the greatest enemy of mankind, a direct threat to civilization, and on the verge of bringing about the end of the human race, then I suppose we deserve what we get. End islam NOW.

    And again, islam is NOT a race. People constantly have to be reminded of this fact. It's a belief system, a way of thinking - just like NAMBLA or Communism or PETA or anything else. It deserves no special protection, and even if we do tolerate freedom of religion (which we should not), there are limits to it and based on existing law there should be an islam exception to the first amendment. A "religion" can't receive protection when all it is is a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, when there is not one single redeeming feature of the supposed "religion." Islam is no better and no different than the murderous crap Charles Manson preached to his followers, and we wouldn't give that First Amendment protection. People who choose to be muslims choose to be criminals - enemies of mankind - and they do so voluntarily. Round 'em up and kill 'em all.

  • Intrepid Demise||

    Go away, troll.

  • sevo||

    Bruce|1.6.11 @ 7:20PM|#
    "...the irrational intolerance of Muslims..."

    Care to tell us why it is "irrational intolerance" when those who choose a vile belief are the subject of that intolerance?

  • ||

    You think that not being a muslim (or, as muslims would call it, being an "infidel") is a "vile belief"?

  • sevo||

    Care to tell me why it isn't?

  • sevo||

    Oops. Correction.
    No, I do not suggest that not being a muslim is a vile belief; choosing to believe in Islam is a vile belief.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So, in order to fight monsters, we must become even more monstrous? Got it.

  • ||

    George Orwell took up arms to fight fascism in Spain, then picked up the pen to defend British fascist leader Oswald Mos­ley against wartime detention.

    In all fairness after reading Orwell's "Why i Write" I have hard time not classifying Orwell as a fascist.

  • ||

    The problem with forced tolerance is that it must be intolerant to someone. This intolerance is usually forced on the group with the most unpopular opinion. Ironically enough, it is the minority that becomes oppressed under this politically correct doctrine of forced tolerance. The same is true with welfare programs and every other form of “social justice” that is destroying this Republic. You cannot claim to support individual liberties when you believe it is morally acceptable for the government to help one person by robbing another.

    http://confederateunderground......ional.html

  • sevo||

    Jackson|1.6.11 @ 7:38PM|#
    "The problem with forced tolerance is that it must be intolerant to someone..."

    Uh, the article is about freedom of speech. Not sure how "forced tolerance" could have a lot to do with that.

  • Campus speech codes?||

  • cynical||

    Depends on what you mean by forced tolerance. If it restricts violence against people based on their speech or beliefs, it simply puts everyone on equal footing, since those protected don't have a right to commit violent acts either.

    If you're talking about punishment for speech or beliefs, though, I agree.

  • Ral||

    For a look at Islam and other world Libertarians see http://www.Libertarian-International.org

  • Ella||

    Hey Ral,

    I tried your link and could not get on as it was forbidden.

  • ||

    This is all situational. If I call a 13 year old girl a cunt at the mall she can be offended but can't do anything about it so it's her problem if she is offended. If I go into a biker bar and call someone a cunt then the offended party will have no problem showing their offense by beating the crap out of me. You want to offend Muslims, or any other group for that matter, why is it such a surprise that they retaliate? If you want to swagger around exercising your "free speech" and insult people then be prepared to get your ass kicked. It's your choice, if you want to challenge some one but be civil you get one reaction, if you want to hurl insults you get another.

  • V||

    If Muslims want to swagger around exercising their "free speech" by sending infidels to hell (read: blow them up) in the name of Allah Almighty and thus insult people then they should be prepared to have their asses kicked.

    Being libertarian doesn't mean acting like a punching bad for ideologues, you know...

  • V||

    Errata: bag

  • ||

    [ And I ask you to remember the sage advice of writer Michael Kinsley who, during 2006 Danish cartoon affair, made a point that was once considered obvious: “The limits of free expression cannot be set by the sensitivities of people who don’t believe in it."]

    Yes, but did Slate publish the cartoons, or is this yet more feckless advice from the left?

  • Krazy Mohamet Kreator||

    When the death fatwas stop, the kartoons won't be as much fun. They can be reduced to the category of "offensive".

  • Mike||

    You'll notice that none of the actual attacks over these images have occurred in the US. I can't wait for the headline "intruders shot while trying to attack Muhammed cartoonist."

    Don't go into hiding! Say what needs said and meet any force that comes out of it with more force.

  • robert chadis||

    the basis of the reasonable is the ability to distinguish.
    as emerson said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
    doctrinaire sanctimoniousness is fundamentalist extremist know nothing oversimplicity.
    people must learn to know the crucial difference between the rational and the reasonable.
    reason is unfortunately mixed up with rationality, instead of being kept subservient to the reasonable.
    the basis of freedom of speech is legal, and the basis of evaluation of a deed is, what would a reasonable person do.
    failure to distinguish between the irresponsible danish mohammed cartoons, v v porn, is lamentable.
    one does not yell fire as a practical joke, nor incite sadistically to violence, and expect protection by law.
    there is such a thing as reckless endangerment.
    not all folly is defined by law, some is left to social pressure. we hope, e g, pressure by the informed citizenry will limit destructive influence of infectious violence in entertainment.
    those danes who published the asinine cartoons are guilty in a social context.
    were they so ignorant as to fail to be aware of the danger, or so callous as not to care?
    of course the murderous islamic fundamentalists are guilty legally.
    but a reasonable person knew the risk to others.
    so, the reason nobody ought to back the silly danes is that the danes were unreasonable. it is not a matter of freedom of speech. obviously, the killers would not be subject to jeffersonian law!
    by the way, has anyone bothered to wonder why any and all depictions of mohammed are proscribed? did the danes simply assume the world lives according to the fairy tales of hans christian andersen?
    i hypothesize that since mohammed emphasized that he was merely a prophet, he would not want graven images of himself worshipped as occurred in the case of jesus, and indeed, mary,
    considered by him to be merely prophets.
    any way one looks at it, it seems to me, the danes were gratuitously contemptuous, like spiteful brats.
    reasonable mature journalists would have discussed their opinion verbally.

  • Krazy Mohamet Kreator||

    My Mohamet is a harmless social buffoon who only decapitates spiteful brats. Thanks for your "reasoned" support, Robert.

  • Mr Tolerant||

    "i hypothesize that since mohammed emphasized that he was merely a prophet, he would not want graven images of himself worshipped"

    And since M is so reasonable and rational the entire world should respect his wish of not wanting people to draw funny pictures of him.

  • GT||

    This is the same Michael Moynihan who, when confronted with the fact that he twisted the truth to pretzels in trying to name Israel Shamir as "employed by Wikileaks", replied "You're just a slimy holocaust denier" - because I wrote a post that said that denialism should not be a crime because free speech was too important.

    Seriously - the irony. "The right to offend"... but not to offend a specific genital-mutilation cult, perhaps?

    Moynihan - a despicable coward, a hypocrite and a vicious ideologue who is prepared to try and bathe in the libertarian kudos for being a free speech advocate, when you do not observe it. Scumbag.

    GT

  • ||

    "When hyperven­tilating activists demand that a planned mosque in Lower Manhattan be relocated out of “respect” (sound familiar?), something that would require government to infringe on the rights of free speech;" Huh? Isn't opposing something in speech part of the free speech equation? Aren't gay activists practicing free speech when they boycott a company they feel is promoting an anti-gay agenda? So the writer in this case wants the mosque; therefore opposition to it is an abuse of free speech. Try practicing what you preach.

  • ||

    Holocaust deniers

  • parker||

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.

    Anyone who believes that freedom is free and the basic rights of people go unearned is horribly wrong. It is duty to self, family, and country that makes sure that the U.S remains free. So, if you are not willing to shed blood for your freedoms, then why should you have them?

    "He who would give a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security deserves NEITHER." Benjamin Franklin

  • theunknown||

    In my lifetime I could never figure out why the left always are offended by something that is said. Now I realize it is an attempt to silence speech they don't like.

  • sophie||

    holeSale Cartier glasses eyeglasses frames at a low price.you will be

  • comwenj||

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • nike air max||

    is good

  • tory burch||

    Offend also have justice of points?

  • hulian||

    good

  • alipay||

    ThAnK

  • wubai||

    ThAnK

  • dfeifjei||

    Get government replica uggs out of education and kids will get educated or fake uggs for sale not, as their parents desire. More of them will actually become educated without government than do now with it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement