More Limits on What You May Say or Hear

* Just one more example of the effort by the left and their allies to limit speech. The National September 11 Memorial Museum has one imam on its interfaith advisory group. However, he was unhappy with a seven minute video narrated by Brian Williams of NBC. Said the imam: "The screening of this film would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum." So, if it offends Muslims can we consider it to be "hate speech?" The imam went on: "Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between al-Qaida and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site." Another example of how - somehow - Muslims became the victims after 9/11. (Quotes and info from the 4/28/14 Investor's Business Daily.)

* As for possible assaults on Muslims, the FBI's statistics on "hate crimes" tell quite a different story. Going back three years (although one could go back further) hate crime statistics for attacks on Jews vs. Muslims are as follows. In 2011, 62.2% of the attacks were against Jews, 13.3% against Muslims. 2012: 56.7% against Jews, 12.8% against Muslims. 2013: 62.4% against Jews, 11.6 against Muslims. So how does this tie into speech? Well, if you say anything against Islam you are "islamophobic" and a "hater." But Jews? Professors Walt and Mearsheimer published an anti-Israel screed on "The Israel Lobby." Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter published his anti-semitic "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." And current Democrat Secretary of State John Kerry suggested Israel could end up as an apartheid state.

* All of these anti-Israel comments and publications might be responsible for the significantly higher "hate crime" attacks on Jews vs. Muslims. As the imam said, these comments present a "prejudiced" view of Israel and Jews, and may have lead to all or some of these hate crime attacks. Will the imam criticize these Israel haters? One thing many of my fellow Jews do not understand is that their fellow leftists will attack them and Israel without any consequences. Just do not try to say similar things about Islam or Muslims.

* The two founders of Pink Floyd have asked that the Rolling Stones cancel a planned concert trip to Israel. Said Roger Waters: "Playing Israel now is the moral equivalent of playing Sun City at the height of South African apartheid." So Pink Floyd wants to limit what Israelis may hear. As these types of comments have spread across the country and the globe, the speakers suffer no consequences. And, for the most part, Jews do not suggest any consequences. Rather, Jews fight back with their own speech in an effort to rebut the many lies put out by these anti-semites.

* As an aside, I suspect Pink Floyd would have no concerns about the recent comment by the head of Hamas: "Our path is resistance and the rifle, and our choice is jihad." Would these Pink Floyd members lose any sleep if Israel were wiped off the map?

* Perhaps to the surprise of some readers, a number of states have laws banning false political advertising. A case out of Ohio was recently heard by the US Supreme Court. An Ohio law allows complaints to be made with the state's election commission. In the current case, an anti-abortion group claimed that a democrat Congressman's vote for Obamacare was a vote to fund abortions. But the Congressman in question actually opposes abortion. So is it a simple question of a misleading ad? Or, is there an argument to be made that the Affordable Care Act provides some support for abortion? If it comes down to a legal technicality, do we want a perhaps ambiguous provision in a statute determining when a statement or political ad is truthful? Who decides? My fear is the result will overwhelmingly be against conservative candidates and causes.

* If, however, we are going down this path can we please start with a prosecution against Harry Reid for his patently false and obnoxious lies? Remember Reid said from the Senate floor during the last election that Romney had not paid any federal income taxes. A lie that Reid knew was a lie, especially since he had no legal way of knowing what Romney paid. And let's not forget Reid's more recent lie, again from the Senate floor, that all the allegations about Obamacare making people pay more for their health insurance, or being denied treatment, were lies. Every single claim a lie. So I vote we start with a prosecution against Harry; we couldn't start with a worthier candidate.