In 2008 a member of the Parliament of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders , released a short film on LiveLeak called Fitna .
Wilders is a member of the PVV or Party of Freedom . They are nationalists that are wary of the integration of European states and even more alarmed at what they view, and negatively so, as the rapid growth of Islamic culture in their country.
Fitna is a film that displays scenes of terrorist violence overlain with passages from the Koran in an effort to demonstrate the linkage between the text and the acts of violence.
In 2009 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered Wilders to be tried for "incitement to hatred and discrimination." In October 2010 the prosecution recommended that the court drop the charges against him.
In a country where our Supreme Court upheld the right of Nazi's to march through a Jewish neighborhood the idea of criminal charges for releasing a film may come as a surprise. Some states regard themselves as so enlightened that they regard giving offense as an infringement upon another's civil liberties. While others simply throw people in jail for telling the truth about the government.
Just some food for thought:
Mark Steyn Trial Canada link 1 and link 2
Aung Sang Suu Kyi in prison in Burma; Nobel Prize winner link 1 and link 2
Liu Xiaobo in prison in China; Nobel Prize winner link 1 and link 2
Without regard to motive, making speech criminal is a blink shy of criminalizing thought. In the US popular speech needs little protection, it is ugly speech that requires it. In despotic regimes the opposite is true. In foolish regimes criminalizing speech becomes, imo, a source for shame. One does not respond to hateful speech with a muzzle but with corrective speech.
the blog.... pretty picture too
Wilders is a member of the PVV or Party of Freedom . They are nationalists that are wary of the integration of European states and even more alarmed at what they view, and negatively so, as the rapid growth of Islamic culture in their country.
Fitna is a film that displays scenes of terrorist violence overlain with passages from the Koran in an effort to demonstrate the linkage between the text and the acts of violence.
In 2009 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered Wilders to be tried for "incitement to hatred and discrimination." In October 2010 the prosecution recommended that the court drop the charges against him.
In a country where our Supreme Court upheld the right of Nazi's to march through a Jewish neighborhood the idea of criminal charges for releasing a film may come as a surprise. Some states regard themselves as so enlightened that they regard giving offense as an infringement upon another's civil liberties. While others simply throw people in jail for telling the truth about the government.
Just some food for thought:
Mark Steyn Trial Canada link 1 and link 2
Aung Sang Suu Kyi in prison in Burma; Nobel Prize winner link 1 and link 2
Liu Xiaobo in prison in China; Nobel Prize winner link 1 and link 2
Without regard to motive, making speech criminal is a blink shy of criminalizing thought. In the US popular speech needs little protection, it is ugly speech that requires it. In despotic regimes the opposite is true. In foolish regimes criminalizing speech becomes, imo, a source for shame. One does not respond to hateful speech with a muzzle but with corrective speech.
the blog.... pretty picture too
