Written by Richard Kane   

Dealing with hate speech varies throughout history. In old England kids used to look at a copper penny while near a cop and hurl the word “Copper” at the penny.

The “N” word, has been in most of the world censured out of use, as has belittling the Holocaust. Sometimes insult and action get tied together Charles Manson was arrested when there was no Capital Punishment in the US and likely would be out on probation by now if his only crime was ordering several deaths. Writing the “P” word in the victims' blood to try to create a worldwide race war he called “Helter Skelter” is the reason his bail is always turned down. Action and words are considered so closely tied together that computer created child-porn where no real children are involved is illegal. Why has no one ever claimed that desecrating a corpse is free speech?

Charles Manson's clan using writing in blood to speak in favor of worldwide Helter Skelter is not unlike the Danish Publication whose cartoons insulted Islam for the sole purpose of trying to get other Danes to stop welcoming refugees from Muslim lands. The purpose of the recent hate Islam film trailer that got a US ambassador killed (or more likely was at the last second changed as the reason) was to give President Obama a Jimmy Carter ending expecting trouble overseas would translate into votes for Romney.

A very few people brag about hurling the insult “fatso” at a heavy person, but many see those who purposely upset Muslims as being heroic, defending free speech, and standing up for religious liberty. Even if you believe Islam is evil, try going up to a mother smoking holding her baby and scream you are killing that child with smoke, you child abuser, you piece of “S”, you dirty “S”. Imagine this world being different enough that, that insulter would be considered a hero standing up for a cleaner world and healthier human beings, and the victim’s reaction proof that she is a bad mother. Why is an unreasonable reaction by a small percentage of Muslims considered to mean there is something wrong with Islam, not the hurler of hate?

Al Qaeda and the right-wing Norwegian bigot, Anders Breivik,who massacred a youth camp are on the same side of the fence when it comes to their belief in their culture not being watered down with outside values. The 9/11 peace mosque where people of all faiths could worship together in New York City is the opposite of the world Anders Breivik and al Qaeda want. Pamela Geller so far successfully fought to stop the freedom of speech mosque, and successfully helped raise money to sponsor a hate trailer to make Muslims more unwelcomed in the west, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/16/1132429/--Pamela-Geller-s-Blog-Solicited-Funds-For-anti-Muhammad-Movie
Thus, one doesn't have the freedom of speech to build a peace mosque but does have the freedom to sponsor or more accurately bait riots and cause trouble for more moderate Muslims.

I'm against Capital Punishment. When American Flag Burning was a crime in the US, some burned red, white and blue cloth to see how far they could go. Laws outlawing the desecration of Islam would have to decide whether a man's shadow on a canvas with a suggestive title was a crime. The main problem isn't the lack of punishment, but the belief of more than a few, that those who spout out anti-Islam hate are standing up for religious freedom and defending the world from barbarism, as if those who shout out “N” and “P” are being heroic and brave.

I haven't heard lately of anyone standing on a ledge and some in the crowd below shouting “jump” at them. People who shout “jump” should be arrested for trying to incite a catastrophe, and Charles Manson should be retried for trying to turn the world into Helter Skelter,

By Richard Kane