The Netherlands emulates, uh, Canada?

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by erps

By the way, there is a common saying regarding free speech that says you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. I wonder if panic is required to punish the speaker, or just the attempt to panic the crowd. I don't know.

See my post just above your's, Ray as I posted simultaneously with you.

The common saying that you refer to is the one denigrated by Steyn and was originally made by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes. It is wildly misinterpreted to diverse purposes.

You certainly can yell, "fire" in a crowded movie theater. One would wonder why you would not when there was a fire. The original context of the quote involved theaters lit by open flame, by the way, where fire was a very real possibility and the results likely to be conflagration. Context is indeed everything. I believe that the standard used in such cases is the "reasonable person" standard.

So, if you yelled, "fire!" in a crowded movie theater today would the reasonable person trample another to death in order to reach the exit? I would submit that the law today would treat the person guilty of trampling far more seriously than it would the fire crier, regardless of the validity of whether fire existed or not.

None of which has a tuppenny damn to do with what we're really discussing. The question in the UK, Canada, and elsewhere is whether just the knowledge that Geert Wilders video is being played to Parliament members is sufficient to justify rioting in the streets by Muslims. Note the difference in response that Steyn highlights of the Brit response to Salman Rushdie many years ago.

In this country we survive while allowing many inflammatory things to be said by the likes of Louis Farrakhan and others. We find it hard to turn on the radio and not hear rap music advocating the killing of police officers. We grimace and move on. We rely on an educated population to sort out what speech is worthy of emulating and acting upon versus what might be regarded as just over the top hyperbole or madness. In case after case we end up referring to the intent of the speaker and, even then, when the intent might reasonably construed as inflammatory, we often absolve the speaker based upon the standard that no reasonable person would follow such directives. (Ex: I state in a public place that I advocate the extermination of all Chicago Bear fans.)

Your example of "fighting words" is one in which the response is justified by the concept that no reasonable man would not be incited to violence upon hearing them.

[sailaway21]

While the Home Secretary considers the conflagration that might erupt should Geert Wilders be allowed entry into the UK, the very potential rioter's imagined are busy at other moderate Islamic activities. It seems the Taliban is short on the requisite electronic devices to manufacture reliable IED's and so the Muslim brethren in the UK is supplying them with the required electronics from Britain.
British Muslims 'providing Taliban with electronic devices for roadside bombs' - Telegraph

A serious lack of perspective is at work here. Much of the western world is seemingly more concerned about offending the delicate sensibilities of our sworn enemies than it is in the fact that these same people have a sworn commitment to killing us all, should we not submit. The chimeral pursuit of moderate Muslims is a fool's game practiced by fools. Our enemy knows us well and is more than willing to use our misguided sensibilities against us. This is not exactly Nero fiddling while Rome burned. It's more like Nero providing the torches.

[PBzeer]

The Corner has quite a few posts today, vis-a-vis the situation.

[sailaway21]

Mark Steyn on the "problem" in Canada from National Review Online.

Which side of the war would you like to be on? [Mark Steyn]

"Old-fashioned types might think that those Britons - okay, make that "Britons" - helping to manufacture bombs for the Taliban are engaged in an act of treason. But, as a current court case in Quebec helps clarify, giving support to the Queen's enemies in their attempts to kill your compatriots is now just another vibrant, colorful manifestation of cultural diversity.

As the International Free Press Society notes, Said Namouh is on trial up north for aiding and abetting terrorism. The Crown charges that Mr Namouh distributed jihadist snuff videos, offered advice on bomb-making, volunteered his expertise for a planned truck bombing, and threatened governnments (including Canada's) with troops in Afghanistan. Defense counsel René Duvall doesn't deny any of this, but says his client's enthusiasm for violent jihad is protected on grounds of freedom of religion and (mirthless chuckle from your humble typist) Canadians' cherished right to freedom of expression. As Maître Duvall put it outside the court, "Where do you draw the line?"

In fact, the line seems to be pretty clear: If a jihadist says he wants to kill Canadian troops, he's just exercising his right to freedom of religion. If I quote what he said in Canada's biggest-selling news weekly, we'll be charged with "flagrant Islamophobia" and hauled up in court.

Meanwhile, the genius jurists at the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal (which devoted one day of last June's show trial to examining the "tone" of my jokes) have rejected a "hate speech" complaint against the Koran. Fair enough, but the grounds for rejection are striking:

Humphreys dismissed the case after ruling that Simpson’s complaint would not further the purposes of the Human Rights Code.

As Commissar Humphreys sees it, the "Human Rights" Code is not merely a set of laws to be applied to all citizens equally, but has ideological objectives which take precedence."

[erps]

Even Briggite Bardot is a criminal now for expressing her opinion.

The U.N. resolution, which has been introduced for the past couple of years, is backed by countries such as Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive nations when it comes to the free exercise of religion. Blasphemers there are frequently executed. Most recently, the government arrested author Hamoud Bin Saleh simply for writing about his conversion to Christianity.

The Free World Bars Free Speech - washingtonpost.com