Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parlament, is being prosecuted for "insulting" and "spreading hate" against Muslims, or hate speech. In the NY Times of 1/30/2009, Ian Buruma discussed the case: Totally Tolerant, Up to a Point I agree with Buruma when he says:
Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.
Buruma further informs us that
Dutch criminal law can be invoked against anyone who "deliberately insults people on the grounds of their race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation."
The author thinks Wilders has gone over the line, forcing government prosecutors to do something
Here are two differing views stating that Wilders should be left alone and his free speech rights are being violated.
Europe's War on Free Speech
and by long-time free speech advocate Nat Hentoff
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...
Wilders was recently barred from entry to the UK because of his anti-Islamic activities.
We Americans (myself included) have a very open-ended idea of free speech, since it's guaranteed in the US Constitution. In many European countries, there are hate crimes laws, and initiating prosecution against individuals for defamation is more easily accomplished. Unquestionably Wilders does not like Islam and he is often over-the-top in his views, but should he be able to continue to express those views.? In the USA, you can criticize, defame, and parody Christianity, Judiasm, Islam and any other religion if you want. You may not be too popular, but it is allowed, so long as no violence is advocated against religious adherents, at which point prosecution for incitement is warranted.
This has become an important story in Europe and the UK. I'm wondering what posters think.