IS KRAUTHAMMER SAYING IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL NOT TO CALL HASAN A TERRORIST?
In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer writes pretty much the column you'd expect him to write about media coverage of the Fort Hood shooting -- but this paragraph jumped out at me:
Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. His business card had his name, his profession, his medical degrees and his occupational identity. U.S. Army? No. "SoA" -- Soldier of Allah. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It's a danger, clear and present.
Hunh? Does Krauthammer really mean clear and present danger in the sense intended by Justice Holmes in a Supreme Court ruling that said free-speech laws don't apply to anti-draft pamphlets during wartime, in the World War I-era case Schenck v. United States?
Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent.
"Prohibition." Is that Krauthammer's meaning -- that not calling Hasan a terrorist or a jihadist should be illegal, because we're at war (with terror)? I mean, it's fine if he wants to criticize those who downplayed the possibility of a political motive on Hasan's part. But is he really arguing that suggestions of other possible motives should be against the law?