U.N. & Obama vs. Freedom of Speech

I am religious. More than that, my religion is rather unique as well as relatively new and small, which makes it a popular target for bashing from mainstream religious adherents and the anti-religious alike. It's not fun to be a scapegoat to both sides of a hugely polarizing debate.

But when an Obama-backed U.N. Resolution (which passed unanimously, as are most UN resolutions) calls for "negative racial and religious stereotyping" to be a just exception to freedom of speech on the grounds that it is abusive and incites unrest... that is ridiculously, dangerously wrong. The resolution's Egyptian co-sponsor defended the ruling with the words "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," and "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."

Got that, news media? Shutting up is the ethical choice. Don't go criticizing Catholics, Muslims, Adventists, Mormons or Scientologists or you could end up censored or jailed.

By the way, Egypt has no freedom of speech and uses the same court system to rule on religious and secular matters.

The whole point of the freedom of speech is to allow criticisms of any institution or individual without having to prove a rational basis first. That way, corruption can always be identified and defied by articulation and expression. The identification of corrupt philosophies and practices in sacrosanct institutions allowed the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution, the events which initiated the historic expansion of democratic and human rights -- the rational basis of practical freedom -- across the modern world.

All reform starts with freedom of expression.

Yes, people should be held accountable for their speech. When Newsweek published a false story about Korans being flushed down the toilet in Gitmo, Muslims rioted and people died. They recognized they screwed up, and apologized. Many rational people (I flatter myself by inclusion) decided not to trust Newsweek at face value anytime soon. They suffered for their mistake. Perhaps insufficiently, but at least some measure of justice exists in the world.

Should Newsweek be forcefully disbanded by national and international governments? Should news media generally be censored to prevent further costly mistakes? No. Their stories should be distrusted, but they should be allowed to write whatever they want. Perhaps, from time to time, they will make valid criticisms that need to be made. I supremely distrust the magazine, but they should be allowed the chance to prove me wrong. If they continue to be dependably wrong, their dramatic failures will build up until they discredit themselves entirely and fail financially. That is both probable and just.

(This wasn't the only time I've found Newsweek's stories to be erroneous. Far from it; for a while there, they seemed to be pursuing a campaign of misinformation against my religion. But the Koran thing was the most topic-appropriate example, and less prone to be biased by my personal religious feelings.)

It is preferable to punish people for the results of their words and advocacy, not the content. If a building is burning down and I yell "Fire!", I may initiate emergency actions that can save lives. If I am in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!", I may initiate a stampede in which people are trampled to death. I may be killer or savior by the same expression. Neither morality nor justice regarding free expression can be determined by the idea expressed; context and consequence determine it.

Obama's successful advocacy of this resolution proves an utter lack of respect for free men. If he thinks accountability is broken, he should be reforming accountability. Instead, he is taking the authoritarian route, throwing out well- and mis-used freedoms together, the baby with the bathwater, in order to improve America's reputation in the Muslim world; a purely political maneuver without even the intent to promote liberty or justice.

It horrifies me that an American leader is so disconnected from the best ideals of the American philosophy.

Iran, North Korea, and the United Arab Emirates

The headline reads UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran.

These aren't nuclear weapon parts, but they are explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and other similar things of the type that have been killing Americans in Iraq. It's also wildly against UN resolutions. If the allegations that weapons have been smuggled over the border from Iran into Iraq are true, these weapons could've ended up being used against US troops in Iraq if they hadn't been caught.

I don't know if the North Korea/Iran connection existed before George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002, but it's clear he was right to list them together. They obviously have some traits and trade in common.

Remember the UAE ports deal? Many Republicans in the legislature and conservatives nationwide doubted whether US security should be entrusted to an Arab nation like the UAE, and whether they could truly be our allies. I think this definitively shows that 1) our best interests are aided by their actions, and 2) they are good at sea security. This only reinforces my belief that we should've let the UAE buy the ports they wanted, and that only short-sighted prejudice prevented it.