An inauspicious start, to say the least. But what did we expect? Oh, yes, the limits on free speech are exactly what you think they are. No surprises here. Except that this resolution passed (adopted by consensus) under the guise of supporting free speech. See, it works like this:The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."Not to put too fine a point on it.
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.So, basically, it's an anti-hate speech resolution, targeted specifically at certain kinds of hate speech (racial and religious) pretending to champion freedom of speech. It's being touted as a "compromise," and it does stop short of including the odious prohibition on "defamation of religion" that's passed at the urging of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in previous resolutions (back when the U.S. wisely chose not to sit on the Council). Nonetheless, Bayefsky isn't alone in finding this disturbing. Eugene Volokh expounds here, at length. More analysis at Howard M. Friedman's Religion Clause blog.
