Glenn Reynolds posts about a Muslim Imam who wrote a book on how to "properly discipline" a disobedient wife (that is, beat them). It's a repellent topic, and Mr. Reynolds asks "Will any multiculturalists spring to his defense?"
Well, I certainly will not defend the beating of wives, but I would like to make one point. From the BBC article:
A Muslim cleric who wrote a book that advised men how to beat up their wives without leaving incriminating marks has been sentenced by a Spanish court.No one should be subject to criminal prosecution for writing a book -- any book, no matter how disgusting.Mohamed Kamal Mustafa was given 15 months in jail, which he will not serve as Spanish law suspends sentences of under two years for first offences.
I agree with you, but consider - what about a book, say, on how to assassinate a president? Or how to build a nuclear bomb? Or containing classified information?
Should someone be arrested for writing a book that contains information that could threaten national security? Or should they just be confiscated? That's another can of worms...
That's the only possible exception I could think of, but I'm curious at people's responses...
Whenever the words "national security" are involved, freedoms and rights start to disappear quickly -- which, as much as I might not like the general concept, is how it needs to be.
A simple example: we have a remarkable number of hiring regulations designed to protect equal opportunity employment in this country, and to prevent employers from digging too deeply into an employee's personal life to influence their occupation. But try getting a job with any security agency -- CIA, NSA, FBI, NRO, etc -- and you'll find that all of those regulations vanish from the lawbooks. You can be denied employment for something as simple as attending a church that is majority non-US citizens.
As well, take one of those jobs and you'll probably find your personal freedoms permanently abridged for life, facing imprisionment for "freely speaking" about your occupation. Some people, in sensitive enough positions, are barred from traveling to certain nations deemed "risky" -- others are permanently prohibited from leaving the country, even after retirement. Many will be required to fill out contact reports for the rest of their lives when they meet with or speak with foreign citizens, even as part of their private lives.
Now, all that said, I strongly believe that these abridgements are necessary in order to protect the interests of the nation, and those people who accept these positions are aware of the freedoms they sacrifice to serve their country.
However, I believe that the government sometimes needs to abridge these freedoms in the lives of private citizens who haven't volunteered for it -- because their exercise of their freedoms carelessly endangers those who have. In America, though, the exercise of this suppression is carefully regulated by all three branches of the federal government, to insure that it isn't abused, and covers a limited and specific set of topics and situations that constitute a true, dangerous breach of national security.
Criminal speech, however, is a completely different matter, and I am inclined to agree with Michael that, disturbing as it may be, it must be protected. The definition of what constitutes criminal action, and hence criminal speech, is much more open than that of national security, and necessarily so, due to the sheer number of agencies and personnel tasked with enforcing criminal law. The larger the base of enforcement personnel, the greater the chance of abuse, because individual actions are less carefully scrutinized.
What Cypren said.