Network Solutions has pulled the plug on a controversial Dutch Politician, who was planning to release a supposed tirade about Islam on his web site.

An American internet company has inactivated the website of a Dutch right-wing politician, who was planning to release a critical film about the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book, on the site. (source – CBC News)

It is interesting, in that there are a lot of issues here. I mean is it free speech to promote hatred? No, I don’t think so, but is it Hate if you try to point out that a particular sect, brand, of something opposes what you believe? I mean there are lots of controversial things in Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, so pointing them out, warning people about them, is that Free Speech or Hate Speech?

After all, we all remember the speech by Pope Benedict in Germany, that caused a stir in the Muslim World. Then there was the cartoons that got a lot of people upset, angry to the point of violence. So is this ‘suspension‘ about censorship, or about stopping Hate?

Dutch officials fear the movie could spark violent protests in Muslim countries, and have emergency evacuation plans in place for their citizens in those countries. (source – CBC News)

I have heard some pretty hateful things in my 52 odd years of life. From comments about Jews, to how people look at Gays, and I don’t know, but unless they are advocating harm to me, or to ‘my kind‘ I suppose that they should be allowed to have such opinions, to voice them as they please. Naturally, a business should have an equal right to not publish or allow those views to be distributed on their media. Should a business allow this man to vent his opinions, and are they promoting Hate?

What about all those White Supremacist Sites that always seem to exist, or how about the sites run by Reverend Phelps? How come he can say his stuff, but this Dutch Politician can’t? Is it because there aren’t enough Gays to go burn down or kidnap people, while there are Muslims? And why should that even be a consideration? Yes, safety is one reason, but shouldn’t it be applicable for all, not just based on averages, or probabilities?

Seems to me that if a person has an OPINION, that shall we say is HURTFUL TO OTHERS, that it should not be CENSORED. What other opinion will then be CENSORED? And frankly I think that this falls under that category. I know of many good God Fearing Christians who still preach about the Wandering Jews, where they talk about how Christ was CRUCIFIED BY JEWS, even though history says it was in fact, the Romans, and thus the Jews are Condemned to Walk Eternally, unable to go to heaven. Hell, some Preachers have claimed it is for that reason that so many were killed in the Holocaust. So come on, that is just as hateful as saying Islam is a religion of intolerances, or of violence. (Remember Pope Benedict’s homily?) It is a speech that promotes Anti Sematism, and yet it isn’t OUTLAWED nor is any Internet Provider rushing to shut down any Religious Right Site that has it on their website.

Granted, it does seem that Muslim Nations take a great deal of exception to these kind of statements, and cast blame where it doesn’t belong, such as on the Dutch Government as was the case with the cartoons. However, they react, it doesn’t make it applicable to our values? If they believe in that sort of responses, does it mean we have to put aside our values? That is simply creating two wrongs, and I don’t see how that helps ease anything, do you?

While I believe we need to take ‘other peoples‘ feelings and beliefs into consideration, I don’t believe it means that we should deny our citizens the rights for which we believe in. Compromise, yes, but people are who they are. If certain criteria is met, where it may indeed be controversial, may even be mean spirited, but not Hateful, NOT promoting harm to others, then it needs to be allowed.

That is what Free Speech means, after all.