In what I think is a very ominous development, this administration is moving away from a longstanding tradition of defending the principle of free speech, and is instead supporting a UN resolution with "a number of disturbing elements."

It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.

We have the right to say whatever we want about others' belief systems, or their lack thereof.

Law professor Eugene Volokh points out that we are still protected by the First Amendment, but he is concerned about the possible consequences of the resolution:

...why the fuss, some might ask, if we're protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.

So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed "hate speech" that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).

To be sure, I think it's quite unlikely that the Administration would indeed work to enact a specific Anti-Hate-Speech Amendment, or make support of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into a litmus test for Supreme Court appointees. But it seems to me that the Administration's and the Nation's international representatives' calling for the suppression of "hate speech" throughout the world would have some significance. At least it would let other countries fault us for inconsistency when American law fails to punish such speech.

7. And beyond that, I'm worried that the Executive Branch's endorsement of speech-restrictive "international human rights" norms will affect how the courts interpret the First Amendment, so that over time, "an international norm against hate speech ... [would] supply a basis for prohibiting [hate speech], the First Amendment notwithstanding." And that worry stems not just from my fevered imagination, but from the views of Prof. Peter Spiro, a noted legal academic who is a supporter of this tendency. That's not fear-mongering on his part, but hope (hope-mongering?) and prediction. So anything that an Administration does to endorse international speech-restrictive norms might well have an effect on our own constitutional rights as well.

And as Frank Gaffney notes, some of these enemies of free speech are already implementing policy at the highest levels:

What is news, and deeply troubling at that, is the fact that President Obama and his administration are now formalizing this ominous alignment in international forums like the Human Rights Council. According to the past writings of Harold Koh, the former Yale Law School dean who is now the U.S. government's top authority on international law and its application domestically, "norms" like the new Human Rights Council resolution should supercede U.S. laws and even the Constitution.

The Ethics and Public Policy Center's extraordinary Ed Whalen cites a 2004 essay by Koh, entitled "International Law as Part of Our Law," as approvingly setting forth the transnationalist view that "Domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law, not simply to promote American aims, but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system." Toward this end, Koh believes that, in several circumstances, it is "appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in light of foreign and international law."

The conclusion seems inescapable: In yet another expression of the President's arrogance, he and his administration are in the process of willfully promoting an agenda at odds with not just the Constitution but the larger national interest.

So what's up? Is this administration determined to be remembered as having the worst record on free speech in US history?

Yes, I realize that if historians were to hold such a grotesque contest, John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act would probably still be running ahead.

But it's not yet nine months into President Obama's first term.

UPDATE: My thanks to Darleen Click at Protein Wisdom for linking this post, and adding some astute observations. Great comments too. Don't miss it.