Law professor Eugene Volokh calls it "censorship envy." Muslims in Europe want the same sort of censorship that many nations now offer to other aggrieved groups. By law, eleven European nations can punish anyone who publicly denies the Holocaust. That's why the strange British historian David Irving is going to prison. Ken Livingstone, the madcap mayor of London, was suspended for four weeks for calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi. A Swedish pastor endured a long and harrowing prosecution for a sermon criticizing homosexuality, finally beating the rap in Sweden's Supreme Court.

Much of Europe has painted itself into a corner on the censorship issue. What can Norway say to pro-censorship Muslims when it already has a hate speech law forbidding, among other things, "publicly stirring up one part of the population against another," or any utterance that "threatens, insults, or subjects to hatred, persecution or contempt any person or group of persons because of their creed, race, colour or national or ethnic origin... or homosexual bent"? No insulting utterances at all? Since most strong opinions can be construed as insulting (hurting someone's feelings), no insults mean no free speech.    

It's not just Europe. In Canada, a teacher drew a suspension for a letter to a newspaper arguing that homosexuality is not a fixed orientation, but a condition that can be treated. He was not accused of discrimination, merely of expressing thoughts that the state defines as improper. Another Canadian newspaper was fined $4,500 for printing an ad giving the citations-but not the text-of four biblical quotations against homosexuality. As David Bernstein writes in his book, You Can't Say That!, "It has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex."

Many nations have set themselves up for Muslim complaints by adopting the unofficial slogan of the West's chattering classes: multiculturalism trumps free speech. Sensitivity and equality are viewed as so important that the individual right to speak out is routinely eclipsed. Naturally enough, Muslims want to play the same victim game as other aggrieved groups. The French Council of Muslims says it is considering taking France Soir, which reprinted the Danish cartoons, to court for provocation.

John Leo

Townhall

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/03/05/188673.html

--

Poisoning Children, Too?

The Parents Television Council has released the results of a new study that examined what Hollywood is producing for children ages 5-10, before and after school and on Saturday mornings, on eight different networks. The numbers should be enough to trigger a double-take for any parent.

First there's the violence. In 443.5 hours of programming, researchers documented a staggering 3,488 instances of violence. Now hold on, Bozell, I hear the apologists saying already, surely you're not going to condemn silly cartoons, are you?

It's a good point. Just how many times did Jerry dismember Tom? How many sticks of dynamite eviscerated Wile E. Coyote, and how many times did Elmer Fudd open fire on Bugs Bunny with that shotgun? This isn't serious violence. It is fantastic and fanciful, meant to elicit laughter because it's comedic and inconsequential. After the smoke clears, the character is back. So take all those "cartoony" instances out. And you're still left with 2,794 other examples of violence...

What about language? Researchers found no less than 250 incidents of offensive language. There is the ever-present "potty humor." On the Cartoon Network's "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy," Billy shows his guardian Grim (a cartoon Grim Reaper) what he thinks of his "stupid rules" by passing gas, but then announces he has to change his pants, implying he soiled himself. In another scene, Billy's dad picks his nose so much he pulls his brains out, and thinking his brain is mucus, eats it.

Euphemisms for obscene language are also prevalent. In the cosmic order of things, most are mild to be sure - but not all. One episode of "SpongeBob SquarePants" deals with the discovery of dirty words, with the childlike characters SpongeBob and Patrick trading sound-effect-covered cuss words, and you can only imagine the obscenity of the sailor talk they're exchanging. More common still was verbal aggression, like abusive yelling and mean-spirited insults. There were 858 examples of these. And another 622 examples of disruptive, disrespectful or otherwise problematic attitudes, of which 53 were aimed at teachers or parents.

And there's sexual content, too, certainly something of great interest to one on the back end of teething. On Nickelodeon's "Fairly Odd Parents" a character uses his magic copier to make the things in his "dad's magazines" real. He pulls out the magazines; one is titled "Under the Bed Monthly." On Disney's "Sister, Sister" there are references to pornography, descriptions of foreplay, and discussions about a "Gay Policeman's Ball."

All of which begs - screams - the question: Why? There is no market demand for this. It is clearly out of bounds, offensive and dangerous. It shatters the innocence of childhood deliberately. And yet there are people out there writing these scripts. There are people - not companies, people - producing this garbage. And there are people distributing it with the goal to reach, and influence, as many millions of little boys and girls as possible.

Brent Bozell

Townhall