Islamic fundamentalists do not believe in pluralism. The believe that Islam is the only way –- not just for them, but for everybody. Nevertheless, they understand how to use pluralism to serve their ends. In the process, they have highlighted a threat to free speech that the advocates of political correctness have not fully appreciated.

Consider the Islamist demand that all negative references to the Prophet Mahomet be suppressed. On its face, the demand is outrageous. But in reply, the Islamists point to laws in western democracies like Germany and Austria that make it a crime to deny the Holocaust. If free speech can be limited to avoid giving offense to one religious group, they say, then certainly it can be limited to avoid giving offense to Muslims.

It’s hard to argue against that kind of logic. Rather, the argument sharply illustrates how insisting on political correctness can subtly subvert the right to freedom of speech.

Holocaust-denial laws are but one example of how political correctness can set us on a slippery slope to censorship. In October, the French National Assembly approved a law that would make it a criminal offense to deny the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks during World War I. Who’s next?

In some American states, secondary school students are not only required to study the Irish potato famine, but are required to study it as an example of “genocide.” In other words, the “party line” is that the Irish were deliberately starved by their British overlords.

Also in America, colleges and universities have experimented with speech codes designed to ban “offensive speech.” The college administrators say that they are merely trying to promote civility and assure minority students a “non-threatening” environment. But some students have complained that these codes are being used to silence any opinion that liberal academics find offensive. A number of courts have agreed with the students and struck down the codes as violations of free speech.

In the musical 1776, there’s a great moment where the Continental Congress is debating the text of the Declaration of Independence. Some of the more timid members of the Congress are shown trying to soften the language of the Declaration, to avoid offending Britons who might be inclined to side with America against the Crown. At length, John Adams can endure the temporizing no longer. “Gentlemen!” he bursts out. “May I remind you that we’re going to have a revolution? I’m afraid we’re going to have to offend somebody!”

Free speech –- if it is truly free –- will usually manage to offend somebody. That’s why we need to be guided by the First Amendment and not political correctness when it comes to letting people speak their minds.