The Justice Department has been asked by the National Association of Muslim American Women to take action against “the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), better known as the ‘Jewish lobby,’ American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, AmericanJewish Congress B Nai B rith, and also the Jewish Council on Public Affairs…” NAMAW says those groups, as well as numerous prominent individual American Jews, have committed “hate speech” in an effort to stir up discrimination against Muslims in America. You should read the whole complaint because it epitomizes the inevitable result of creating classes of “hate speech” in which the government is asked to judge the acceptability of particular statements and to suppress statements that aren’t acceptable, according to somebody’s definition. In this case, NAMAW is demanding that the government suppress political and religious speech with which it disagrees by branding it “hate speech.” This is exactly the kind of abuse of government power that led the Founders to support the First Amendment. Is there any difference between a Muslim activist group seeking to use an allegation of hate speech to induce the legal system to suppress political and religious speech it dislikes and university administrators using speech codes to suppress political and religious expression judged to be “inappropriate” or “unacceptable”? In case you are wondering about the Kristalnacht reference, that was the disgraceful event in Nov. 9, 1938, during which Hitler’s Gestapo assaulted Jews throughout Germany, wreaking officially sanctioned destruction on their synagogues and businesses. According to the official order from Hitler to the Gestapo, “preparations are to be made for the arrest of about 20,000 to 30,000 Jews in the Reich. Above all well-to-do Jews are to be selected.” It is a very short step from claiming that certain groups and individuals are guilty of “hate speech” to manufacturing reasons why those same groups and individuals must be proscribed from full participation in the political system. From there, the road leads demands for the proscribed group’s removal from any participation in the political or economic system and thence directly to the Holocaust. I wonder if NAMAW denies that historical reality? UPDATE: Volokhh responds Or I should say a spokesman for NAMAW responds to Volokhh and he provides a point-by-point rebuttal. Well worth reading because the exchange illustrates the logical difficulties I’ve observed in dealing with tin foil hat brigadeers and closed minded types of many faiths. HT: The Volokh Conspiracy First Amendment Freedom of Speech Jews Muslims Political speech Freedom of Religion Holocaust Holocaust Deniers
