State Department vs. Free Speech

[Meta Blog]

Dear Editor:

Our State Department's condemnation of European newspapers for printing cartoons of Mohammad--in the face of Muslim death threats against this act of free speech--is a low point in American diplomatic history.

When Muslim groups threaten the West for "un-Islamic" content, it is irrelevant whether the content in question is in bad taste. The only proper response is to condemn the militant enemies of free speech, and to do whatever is necessary to make sure that they do not act on their threats. The idea that freedom of the press must be "coupled with press responsibility" means that we are only free to say things that don't offend Muslims--which means that free speech is not a right, but a fleeting permission.

Dr. Yaron Brook
Ayn Rand Institute executive director

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000635.html

[dark_unicorn]

The State Department has always placed looking good in the eyes of the formless entity of world opinion then it has standing up for the American state and what it is supposed to stand for. Although Condelezza Rice is clearly not what would be considered a liberal and she is echoing the sentiments of the linguini-spined left, most of the state department is hold-overs from previous, less principled administrations. (Although Bush has proven to be a friend to pragmatism at times also)

The state department could be analogized as a samurai sword and the U.S. could be seen as a practicer of a traditional Japanese honor suicide, impaling itself and waiting for the Islamic world to behead it and hasten it's death to repay the debt that it never earned yet felt it needed to pay. It would be tragic if it wasn't so utterly senseless.