The New Freedom of Speech
as resolved by the United Nations
In April of this year (2008), the United Nations bowed to the power of the Islamic community in passing a measure which flies in the face of the United States Bill of Rights, Amendment 1: The Right to Free Speech. The measure gives the UN the right to monitor religious prejudice in the US and other countries. Any "racial or religious discrimination" which constitutes "abuse of the right of freedom of expression" must be reported to the UN for action. This is a move against any form of expression which may offend Muslims such as the publication of the Danish newspaper cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad shown with a bomb, fuse lit, inset into the turban. This measure, of course, will serve as a tool for any nation to restrict the freedom of expression and block dissenting views by its citizens.
The US, although not a member of the UN Human Rights Council, announced the "resolution as adopted attempts to legitimize the criminalization of expression." Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan stated on behalf of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (see my website, Chapmanbooks.com, for a detailed examination of the Islamic Conference) said the resolution would not limit free speech but would merely require people to exercise their freedom of expression responsibly. The Egyptian ambassador, Sameh Shoukry, said the right to freedom from religious discrimination and defamation was not sufficiently protected because it permitted "some of the worst practices that incite racial and religious hatred."
Typical of the new language for the new age is to take a statement such as "free speech" and twist it to mean something more like "free hearing:" one shall not speak that which may cause offense to the hearer. A "right" is that which is consequential to being human as opposed to that which is a privilege granted by a governing power. The original concept of the basic right of free speech was to be able to freely speak out against that which is offensive in order to bring about a change without consequence to oneself. It was meant that citizens could freely speak out against authorities for proposed rulings or laws passed which were unfair to the populace, thereby freely expressing their opinions without fear. It recognized differences in people and the way they perceive or see things which affect their lives and allowed them to express those differences without reprisal. It seems now, however, the newer meaning for the right to freedom of speech carries a penalty for speaking against someone or something which may be deemed offensive by the target of such speech. The speaker has a responsibility not to offend with their right of free speech. Speaking one's mind now might be seen as racial, prejudiced or bigoted if such speech includes any words or phrases which are perceived as such, whether intended or not. Such speech may now be prosecuted in a court of law and penalized with jail time and/or fines to the speaker. In practical application, if the speaker is Judeo-Christian, this law specifically addresses them in order to restrict their verbalizing their beliefs. If the hearer is anything other, this law protects them from having to listen to what they consider drivel and/or blasphemy. How then, exactly is the "right to free speech" now defined? Anyone's guess.
But know this, that in the last days, grievous times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof. For these are those who [are] always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Ti 3:1-7