Much as I hate spammers, and a lot of what passes for human thought, I don't want the UN to "help."

Others do, however.

There are also legitimate concerns about the use of the Internet to incite terrorism or help terrorists, disseminate pornography, facilitate illegal activities or glorify Nazism and other hateful ideologies.

(Via Beltway Blogroll, who notes that Glenn is remaining uncomforted.)

I'm particularly uncomforted by the "other hateful ideologies" part, because I'm having a definitional problem. What might Kofi Annan have in mind? As it is, Ebay and Yahoo have already been censored in France and Germany. (For selling World War II memorabilia relating to Hitler, but not Stalin!)

Not that there aren't sites which do actively promote hateful ideology. Nazis and skinheads aside, Michael Marcavage is considered by many people to be running a hate site because he calls for (among other things) the deliberate execution of homosexuals. Much as I abhor Marcavage, I think he should be given the same right to free speech as Nazis, Aryan skinhead types, or Islamofascists (all of whom call for the death of homosexuals and of course Jews).

But then there are the false charges of hate. Plenty of people accuse Little Green Footballs of being a hate site -- even though the blog is written by a libertarian who devoted himself to fighting hateful Islamofascist ideology after 9/11. And even though (as I've noted before) the blog has gone out of its way to condemn bigotry and hatred in all varieties, and has praised Muslims when they show genuinely peaceful intentions. Nonetheless, there's a longstanding movement with a goal of censoring Charles Johnson -- and all who might agree with him. Put the UN bureaucrats in charge of the Internet, I don't think it's at all farfetched to imagine that LGF would be included among "hateful ideologies." More here. And Kathy Seipp has an excellent discussion of the attacks on LGF at NRO.

As most readers know, I hate most ideology, which in itself might make me vulnerable to a charge of "hateful ideology." Philosophically speaking, why isn't hatred of hateful ideology also a form of hateful ideology? "Hate speech" versus "hate-hate speech"? ("Nazis. I hate those guys!" will do just fine as an example. Try substituting "Commies" or "IslamoNazis" and it might become, well, hateful.)

The fact is, not too many ideologies are based on all love, all the time, and few I know of are "hate free."

I don't mean to "glorify" hate, or the hatred of hate. But Annan's remarks not only failed to reassure me, they worried me.

Because his assumptions are undefinable.

I hate that stuff!