Free speech and the hatred of it.

Last month, another Istanbul court opened a case against Orhan Pamuk the internationally acclaimed Turkish author. He is due to appear in court on December 16 on charges of insulting Turkey's national dignity by telling a Swiss newspaper that one million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds had been killed in Turkey and that nobody dared to say so.

Is it not crystal clear that restrictions on speech are road spikes on the Highway to Truth? (Yes, we've had too much coffee today and we are a little wired.)

Who cares whether "Turkish dignity" is insulted? The only questions to ask are, "Is what he said true?" and "Did he intend it as an immediate incitement to violence?"

If what is said is not true, free speech has served its purpose in publicizing the opinions and names of people whose opinions are worthless. If it is true, it becomes part of the "operative facts" of that country, for good or ill, with appropriate consequences to follow on. Since the killings did take place, the emphasis ought, for example, to be on what led to the killings and who were responsible for them. Energy is better expended there rather than in resorting to absurd measures of suppression, such as purporting to defend Turkish "dignity." The killings are what should be seen as what "insulted" that dignity or made Turkey look bad, not that courageous man pointing out the obvious fact of the killings.

True speech thus should lead to salutary corrective.

Egyptian University of Nablus students threw a professor out of a second-story window for arguing that Islam developed gradually rather than out of the mouth of Mohammed. Khomeini sentenced a non-Iranian Salman Rushdie to death for unflattering things he wrote about Mohammed. Malaysian women are prosecuted for preaching Christianity. Christians are stabbed in Pakistan. These actions, and millions like them, keep Islam mired in the Samsara Swamps that draw back down into the ooze anyone with an idea that might lead to the betterment of all.

And, as we have harped incessantly, they show the painful insecurity of Muslims who simply cannot bear the least bit of head-to-head competition with their fastidleinneutral religion.

And not just on the issue of Islamic amelioration. We all have a huge stake in keeping public debate raw, vigorous, robust, and exuberant. As one wise man or woman said, free speech is good because it helps identify the crazies. The Colonel's paraphrase of another wise person is that the remedy for slime speech is more slime speech. The same sentiment exactly.

And, therefore, the only valid concerns are these:

1. Is the speech true?
2. Is it intended as an immediate incitement to violence?

Whether someone is offended, insulted, or hurt is irrelevant and anyone who whines thus is just simply pathetic. There are a lot of people the Colonel thinks would be better off drifting in an inner tube in the Roaring Forties. Yet, unfortunately, they are still here and continue to say stuff about his country, culture and cherished beliefs that, according to the strict dictates of Divine Justice, warrant horse whipping, at a minimum.

But, bottom line, we don't care a fig about what historical illiterates say and neither should anyone with the least backbone care what is said about their cherished idols.

Weak people need to have it pointed out to them that no one cares whether they are offended, that offense taken is irrelevant in the realm of public debate, and that their real problem is their terror at being unable to refute an attack on the merits. Since Muslims are on such shaky ground, and know it, of course they have to react with blind violence to silence the competition.

"Turkish Court Blocks Conference on Armenian Genocide." Assyrian International News Agency, 9/23/05. From: Cultural Amnesia, Gates of Vienna, 9/24/05.