This story got going yesterday with Senator Graham's comments on Face the Nation. I've never been a Graham-hater, but I'm definitely not a fan at this point. The dude fails the most basic lesson of the First Amendment: The antidote to offensive speech is more speech. I hate flag burning, but the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling in Texas v. Johnson is central to preserving the marketplace of ideas. By allowing someone to burn the flag we uphold the values for which the flag stands. It's extremely offensive. But as symbolic speech it affirms our freedoms.
So I cringe at this interview with Senator Graham at National Review. I denounced Koran-burning last year during all the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque. Pastor Terry Jones is an idiot, and while I support his right to burn Islam's holy book, the same rule applies: Burning the flag is extremely offensive, and so is Koran burning. I don't endorse either form of expression, but I wouldn't attack either as un-American. That's not to say burning the Koran is the right thing to do, especially with how freighted the act is in this environment. But one lone wacko is not responsible for rampaging murderous Muslims 6 thousand miles away. What's evil is the reversal of responsibility game that everyone's playing, from the White House on down. And the headline sets the debate at New York Times, "Afghans Avenge Florida Koran Burning, Killing 12." And also, "Afghans Protest Koran Burning for Third Day." Well, at least the editors at the Baltimore Sun get it. "The U.S. has condemned Quran burning; will Afghans condemn the violence?": There's no doubt that the publicity-seeking Florida minister who burned a Quran to demonstrate his hatred of Muslims committed a pointlessly provocative and reprehensible act. But the reaction of Afghan rioters who killed at least innocent 20 people in retaliation for what they saw as an intolerable insult to Islam is even more indefensible. And while there are plenty of Americans willing to speak out against anti-Muslim intolerance, where are the Afghan leaders willing to condemn the violence committed by their fellow Muslims?
And check this out: To their credit, the national news media withheld the lavish coverage it had previously provided the minister's obvious play for attention. As a result, Mr. Jones' reckless provocation initially went largely unnoticed in the Muslim world. But then for some reason known only to himself, Afghan President Hamid Karzai chose to resurrect the issue in a speech on Thursday, in which he sharply criticized U.S. forces for accidentally killing innocent civilians and called for Mr. Jones' arrest for the "crime" of insulting Islam.
Having lived in the U.S., Mr. Karzai knows perfectly well that U.S. law doesn't permit police to arrest people simply for exercising their right of free speech — however repugnant such speech may be. He also had to know that publicizing Mr. Jones' lunacy during a televised address might very well stoke extremist elements in his own country to commit acts of violence and cause the loss of innocent lives. But whatever twisted political calculation led him take such a risk, Mr. Karzai's criticism of his American partners and his calls for Mr. Jones' arrest have only grown more strident since the rioting began on Friday.
One almost gets the impression the Afghan leader is deliberately fomenting unrest among his people, perhaps in a desperate attempt to deflect criticism from the corruption and incompetence of the government he leads. He has always been a shaky ally whose integrity was doubtful at best.
But Mr. Karzai's is not the only voice in Afghanistan. Where are the other leaders of that country who have the moral authority to condemn the violence and the courage to speak out against bigotry and intolerance? Mr. Jones acted recklessly and without regard to the danger others might find themselves in as a result of his shameless self-promotion and puffery. He is a vain, selfish man, the exact opposite of what a true spiritual leader should be. Perhaps that is why he has never been able to attract a flock of followers and relies instead on the anonymous audiences provided by the television news cameras to get his twisted message across.
Yet for all his failings, Mr. Jones did not commit a single act of violence or cause any person physical harm. It was the mullahs in Afghanistan, who whipped their congregations into a frenzy, and the rioters themselves who are to blame for the 20 deaths so far around the country, including seven at a United Nations compound, and injuries to dozens more.
Nope. Not a single act of violence, but Graham's ready to criminalize political opinion in America. (And President Obama's "condemning" the "hate speech.") Boy, wouldn't want to offend those murderous mobs across Afghanistan.
See also Mark Steyn, who calls Graham a "wretched buffoon": "Re: Lindsey Graham and the First Amendment."
