First Amendment berserker

At the risk of losing my recent membership in the responsible, radically moderate (and quite select) John Spruce Society:

While recognizing the importance of freedom of the press and expression, U.S. State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said these rights must be coupled with press responsibility.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," Hironimus said. "We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

Listen, Hironimus, you cow. And Rice for that matter:

Okay, as I choke down the the notion of the foreign affairs arm of the United States government using the word "responsibility" and presuming to lecture the free press of what it may consist, let me say this: if diplomacy and the military might of the United States is to be used for anything, it should be used in the defence of our constitutional rights, and among the most prominent of these is freedom of the speech and the press. Goverments cannot define "responsible," because they are interested parties. You must defend them all, from all enemies, domestic (well, except yourselves, of course) and foreign. You took an oath.

You talk about "transformational democracy?" Do you really think that any
democratic virtue is more important than letting the other guy have his say, regardless of how offended to you are? Is there a more important lesson?

How serious am I about this? For a dozen reasons, philosophical and practical, I opposed the invasion of Iraq and continuing operations there. But if any nation assisted action against for an American citizen publishing a caricature of Mohammed, I would support converting that country to the Luminous Republic of Glassistan. Bin Laden's grievances cited as cause for the 9/11 attacks -- factually accurate -- were at least arguably hostile acts against the rights of Muslims; the "right" not to be offended emphatically excluded.

How serious am I about this? I think it was criminal that Britain hid Rushdie instead of setting up a series of sting operations to kill anyone who would have assassinated him for The Satanic Verses.

And I say this as someone who does not believe Islam is inherently more prone to terrorism than Christianity, Buddhism, atheism or any other belief system, or any more inherently intolerant. I also say this as someone who loathes most of Rushdie's work, including the Satanic Verses. You know that old line about disagreeing with someone but defending their right to say it to the death? I wouldn't presume to courage I've never had to demonstrate, but I approve of the sentiment. Especially if we're talking about the other guy's death, the one who would abridge that right.

Of course the conservatives in the Congress and this administration who would amend the First Amendment to specifically outlaw flag-burning because this political act offends their feelings clearly understand from where the denizens of the outraged Muslim street are coming.

But, wondering: do Ann Coulter's "Invade, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" and Pat Robertson's advocacy of assassinating Hugo Chavez constitute a classic example of "fighting words," especially as influential memebrs of a representative democracy, and are therefore quite outside First Amendment rights? Like the Arabs or Venezuelans would be within their rights to, ah, silence them, in pre-emptive self-defence?

But let me say for the record, in my view: Mohammed was a liar; Allah is largely a myth; the Hadith are likely forgeries; Islam is full of the detritus of desert polytheism.