In 2006, the Canadian magazine Maclean’s published a funny and frightening article by Mark Steyn entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” It is an excerpt from Steyn’s funny and frightening book, America Alone and contains the kernel of the book’s thesis: On the basis of demographic data, Islam is poised to dominate the political and cultural dynamics of many Western countries.

In response to the article, The Canadian Islamic Congress got together with some legal advisors in the United Kingdom and built a case against Maclean’s and Steyn, charging they violated a Canadian hate speech law. There was a five day hearing last week and now all parties are awaiting a ruling by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

Yesterday, the New York Times weighed in on the case with a story by Adam Liptak. To his great shame, Liptak took at face value the characterization of Steyn’s article as hate speech:

. . .Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions – even false, provocative or hateful things – without legal consequence.”

The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

Liptak quotes the following statement issued by the Ontario Human Rights Commission without critique:

By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West,’ this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others.

The problem is Steyn does not portray “Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics.” However, one would never learn this from reading Liptak’s article because Steyn’s original piece is never quoted or described. This is particularly damaging because Liptak has built his entire article around the assumption that Steyn’s work constitutes hate speech and that such speech, though loathsome, is uniquely protected in America.

Yet no one, it seems, can protect thought-provoking writers from the intellectual laziness of the New York Times.