In a previous post, I noted that HRCs and their victims are trees in a bigger forest. In that context, I noted the plight of Chris Kempling, whom several organizations have tried to silence, without the help of the HRCs. Here's another tree that indicates the scope and implication of the bigger forest: BBC chief: Reporting on Islam is over-cautious out of fear of offending Muslims.
Speaking at Westminster Cathedral Mr Thompson, a practising Catholic, said there was “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole”.Many news organizations, pundits, and thinktanks are not going to wait until they have to face a commission or are sued before they begin to censor themselves. Maclean's and Western Standard have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves - without having been found guilty. If reporting of legitimate news items (e.g. Danish cartoons) or publishing of political opinion (e.g. threat of radical Islam) are not protected by law and (real) courts, we will find ourselves wondering what news stories haven't been reported and what insights have been suppressed. Of course, the enemies of free speech are quite satisfied when people pre-emptively censor themselves - it is a step toward owning and controlling all speech. This is the reason that HRCs and the other aspects and implications of their bigger context are so dangerous.
