Illinois Nazis, Swedish Libertarians, Flags and Korans

Libertarians and other freedom absolutists can be a wearying bunch. You've probably heard us repeat variants of the (misattributed) Voltaire-ism,

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

a few times too many.

The defense for such behavior can be found in other quotations of famous dead people:

A republic, if you can keep it. -- B. Franklin

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. -- T. Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -- Also T. Jefferson

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. -- T. Paine

This is my doctrine: Give every other human being every right you claim for yourself. -- R. G. Ingersoll

And, most germanely of this sampling:

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- G. Orwell

Two Supreme Court decisions are on today's menu: Texas v. Johnson (1989) and National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977). In both, the Supremes (the DC nonet, not Diana et al) affirmed that the First Amendment trumps anyone's offensensitivity, even if that offensensitivity is shared by a large swathe of the populace or dialed to eleven.

It also applies to the claimed sacredness of religions and religious texts, and it's a concept that extends beyond America's borders. Eight years ago, a Danish newspaper published a dozen editorial cartoons depicting Muhammed, a major no-no in Islam. The purpose of their publishing is discussed in the linked Wikipedia article, as are the images themselves, but both are irrelevant. Under the premises of free speech, both are not only permissible, but must be defended. Many will recall that there was much recrimination and much self-censorship in the aftermath. Both are also permissible and defensible under free speech tenets - just as you cannot be prohibited, you cannot be compelled, and just as you can voice support for free speech, you can criticize what people do with that liberty. Debate and controversy are also part of the free speech oeuvre.

Murder, however, is not. After the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo published the cartoons, a dozen of its people were gunned down by Islamic fanatics, and another 200 or so people were killed in protests around the globe.

This is the murderer's veto. Abhorrent and frightening, but it must be rejected.

Fast forward to present-day, where demonstrators in Sweden were granted permission to stage a protest that would include the burning of a copy of the Quran. The front man, an Iraqi expat named Salwan Momika, was clearly looking to provoke.

He was successful. The Swedish government condemned Momika's actions (which also included putting a slice of ham on the book he burned) as Islamophobic, Iraq expelled Sweden's ambassador and recalled its own head diplomat, and suspended dealings with Swedish businesses.

Call this the zealot's veto.

Sadly, it may work. There are reports that Sweden is considering amending its free speech laws to prohibit public burning of Qurans.

For reasons of public safety.

AKA, the coward's excuse.

Benjamin Franklin's oft-misunderstood "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" aphorism echoes here.

Just as a law preventing flag burning is an affront to the First Amendment, any law carving out an exception to 1A that isn't rooted in one person's infringement of another's liberties, e.g. slander, libel, incitement, intimidation (and I must repeat, offensensitivity is not a right or liberty), a law prohibiting mistreatment of someone's holy book has no liberty-based leg to stand on. The First Amendment protects our right to blaspheme, and that covers both believers and non-believers.

The Texas v Johnson SCOTUS case that protected flag burning was born of a 1968 federal law, passed in response to flag burnings at anti-Vietnam protests. Since politicians hate* to be told "no, you can't" (see: the reaction to several current Court decisions), Congress tried again, and was again smacked down in 1990’s United States v. Eichman (sadly, both cases went 5-4. They should have gone 9-0). Still undeterred, Congress sought to overrule the Court the only way our Constitution permits: with an Amendment granting it the "power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

That Amendment never cleared the Senate.

It shouldn't.

What's to be gained by prohibiting flag burning (or Quran or Bible or Veda burning)? Those who would burn them aren't going to have their minds changed. If anything, their views will only be reinforced. And, if you prohibit one but permit others, what message are you sending? There is much irony in proffering the American Flag as a symbol of freedom if you aren't free to do bad things to it, isn't there?

I know that this is one area where conservatives often part ways with libertarians. If you're OK with a Quran burning, but not a flag burning, I urge you to reconsider. Liberty only works when it applies to everything, equally and without prejudice.

An afterthought: While we may cheer Jake and Elwood for disrupting the Skokie protest, we should recognize that their action was no different than today’s campus cancelers. Mission from God or not, their way was not the way of liberty, no matter how happy it made the crowd.

Finally, a nod to the Oxford Comma. I’m a huge fan of the aforementioned, but its elision in today’s title is deliberate. You can figure out why.