Chilling winds from the north

Only in recent weeks have I studied up on the sad state of free expression in Canada, which goes far beyond the kangaroo court proceedings against Mark Steyn. In truth, I've been shocked to see how devalued this basic right has become in a nation whose roots are so related to our own.

I'm not shocked, however, to find Americans who, as usual, think our notions of freedom are quaint, outdated, and due for revision:

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

Make no mistake: I believe there SHOULD be penalties for incitement to violence and mayhem. But to prosecute pundits like Steyn for pointing out factual demographic, social and legal trends while turning a blind eye to immigrants' explicit calls for 'holy war' against their adopted lands seems to be a case of highly misplaced priorities. Have we in the West become so bereft of discernment we can't distinguish between these different types of speech?