Don't miss the critical trial that is going on in the Netherlands. Dutch politician Geert Wilders is accused of insulting Islam. On the first day of the trial, he pronounced (quite accurately) that far more than just him, the free speech of all was being tried.
The editors at National Review haven't failed to pick up on the significance:
Free speech is indispensable in a free society, and many a great man has fought for that principle, some of them going to prison for it. It is a longstanding if hard-won principle in the West that Wilders has a fundamental right to make whatever comment he likes about Islam, its prophet, or its scriptures, and so do all of us. To the extent that Dutch law contradicts that principle, it contradicts what is best in Europe's heritage.
Furthermore, Wilders is an elected parliamentarian, leader of the third-largest party in his country. Public figures not only have a right to speak out, but a duty.
There is no question that Wilders has inflamed many with his provocative pronouncement that Islamism is the new Nazism. But think about it: if the Islam is successful in silencing his opinion to say as much, does it not in some ways prove the validity of the accusation against it?