Right Decision Wrong Reason

A French cartoons editor has been acquitted of insulting Muslims by reprinting cartoons of the prophet Muhammad:

A French court has ruled in favour of weekly Charlie Hebdo, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said it incited hatred against Muslims.

The cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam, but fundamentalists, it said.

The case was seen as an important test for freedom of expression in France.

Except this wasn’t a victory for free speech. According to the article, the editor was acquitted because the cartoons criticized only fundamentalists, not Muslims or Islam in general. So presumably criticizing Islam would still be a crime. The accused editor (perhaps unknowingly), summarized the situation correctly:

… the ruling was a victory for secular French Muslims.

Yes – this was a victory for religious apologists of all stripes. Implicit in the judgment is that it is not OK to make fun of a religion; it is only OK to make fun those who use religion to justify terrorism. If he had been found guilty merely of making fun of Islam he could have faced a maximum fine of nearly 30,000 euros ($40K) and a jail sentence of up to six months. Just for criticizing a religion.

As I’ve written before, religions should be the first thing we are allowed to criticize. Religious beliefs are not generally backed by evidence, and are frequently contradicted by overwhelming evidence and common sense, and yet they expect special privileges, they expect to be accorded a special level of respect they haven't earned.

And don’t think that even this lame acquittal on these narrow grounds (still acquiescing to the need to respect religion), will keep the theocrats happy. Lhaj Thami Breze of the fundamentalist Union of Islamic Organizations of France, one of the groups that brought the suit, said he would appeal the decision. That’s how much these religious nuts respect the free speech and rights of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their invisible sky fairy story as written in their magic book. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

It’s good that the editor was acquitted. It’s a pity the acquittal wasn’t because it’s OK to make fun of religion.

Comments

[Frank Rapp]

Isn't it because religions are not backed by credible evidence and require special pleading (aka faith) in order to exist to begin with that the followers of the religions demand special handling? For without the protection they receive and the automatic "respect" that the average citizen seems to believe those religions are entitled to, in today's world of expanding knowledge of our world, our universe, our selves, they'd dry up and blow away like so much dust. Would you say it's safe to say that the leaders, those who profit the most from keeping the religion going, are well aware that if their belief systems were open to the harsh light of proper inquiry on a large scale basis, they'd all have to get real jobs? Imagine the pope standing in line at the unemployment office, eh?

[Ramesh]

Off topic post deleted by Skeptico.

[kevin]

If so many people in the past weren't subjected to unimaginable pain and suffering because of religious intolerance, I'd agree with you that people deserve to have the right to say whatever they want. But thinking about the holocaust, witch hunts, fire bombing churches, people beating up other people because their country is at war with extremists of the same religion, I'd have to say that people don't deserve that right. People are dumb. They need big brother to come in once in a while and tell them it's a step in the wrong direction. How did the holocaust start? With intolerance and people being free to say what they want. We can't do much about people's intolerance, but we can tell them to shut the hell up. And I'd support it even if it prevents the remote possibility that someone will get hurt because of their religious beliefs. We've had our chance to show that we can be trusted with free speech, and that nothing too bad can come out of it, and we failed. Miserably.

[Tom Foss]

Actually, the Holocaust started because the government stepped in and started telling people to shut the hell up. Anti-semitism is a nasty thing, but it's more or less a paper tiger when it's just individuals spreading it. It's when those individuals have government support that you get serious problems.

History bears it out that every time freedom of speech is abridged by a government, it leads to major problems.

[kevin]

That's because when past governments have censored speech and it was actually a good idea, it's not worth noting in the history books.

[Jimmy_Blue]

That's because when past governments have censored speech and it was actually a good idea, it's not worth noting in the history books.

So how do you know it happened, was a good idea, and a government did it?

Please do illustrate your response with examples.

[JR]

But thinking about the holocaust, witch hunts, fire bombing churches, people beating up other people because their country is at war with extremists of the same religion

Funny how all these examples are atrocities committed by religious people. Shouldn't we be able to criticize religion so these sorts of things don't happen again?

[kevin]

"Please do illustrate your response with examples."

I can't.

I could find you evidence that courts have censored speech before. But if a court somewhere censored speech for the greater good, and then nothing happened, that's not really proof that it prevented violence. Censored speech leading to good and everything is okay is difficult to show.

On the other hand, censored speech directly leading to widespread chaos, death, and hell on earth is a no brainer.

I seem to always find myself on the more difficult side of the argument.

"Funny how all these examples are atrocities committed by religious people. Shouldn't we be able to criticize religion so these sorts of things don't happen again?"

Some religious people are freaks. They seem to be the cause a lot of the problems. But stop thinking in terms of "us" and "them", because there are a lot of non-religious freaks who would be counted as being on your side, and I'm sure you don't want to defend them. I'm saying that allowing these things to go ahead leads to violence, regardless of who causes them. Can we agree that preventing violence is a goal that outweighs ensuring complete freedom of speech?

But you're right. We should be able to criticize "them" in certain circumstances. Like the post which started these comments... I agree that making fun of extremists who routinely employ violence is okay. And the French court agreed too.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Kevin:
I can't.

But you make the assertion anyway.

Can we agree that preventing violence is a goal that outweighs ensuring complete freedom of speech?

No, we can't. Sometimes there is a price to be paid, but it is better than the alternative of censorship. History does demonstrate that.

[Tom Foss]

Can we agree that preventing violence is a goal that outweighs ensuring complete freedom of speech?

No, we can't.

There's a difference between speech which directly causes problems (such as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater) and speech which causes problems because some people don't like it (like making fun of Mohammed). Few would object to censoring the former, but censoring the latter empowers the offended party. You tell them that they deserve special consideration, and suddenly you've created a social hierarchy in which some people's ideas are considered privileged. It's certainly not hard or uncommon for that sort of thing to get out of hand. Either the disenfranchised groups demand the same treatment or the privileged group demands other special treatment, or more privilege, or they lord it over the disenfranchised groups. And that's going to lead to a lot more chaos than one group of petulant children rioting because they don't get to be treated better than everyone else. Eventually, they'll get over it, or they'll die out. When you validate their feelings of superiority, you perpetuate their petulance, and you only cause more problems.

[kevin]

"Sometimes there is a price to be paid, but it is better than the alternative of censorship. History does demonstrate that."

If you had to choose between not letting some guy speak his mind on a controversial subject, or seeing some kid get his head smashed against a wall, which would you choose?

That's a hypothetical question, of course, and its never that simple. But in my mind, allowing intolerance to build is almost as clear cut. I'm almost certain that it will lead to violence. And the way I see it, hate laws is the best we can do to curb intolerance.

"and suddenly you've created a social hierarchy in which some people's ideas are considered privileged."

I understand what you're saying. But I think you're making your argument in a vacuum. Ideally, yes, it makes sense. But when you're talking about religion, you can argue that it does deserve to be privileged for many reasons: its traditional prevalence in all cultures, its belief of sacredness, and even (I say this reluctantly) the fact that a lot of people would be willing to kill for it. Religion is a special case unlike any other group. And this isn't really a "group" we're talking about ... correct me if I'm wrong, but nearly half of the world is religious. "Group" wouldn't be the best word to describe it.

And just to clarify, I think that a cartoon that made fun of religion in a humorous way is okay. The fact that we're talking about a cartoon is perhaps hurting my argument. I'm talking more about speech that incites hatred against a group of people. Does allowing this kind of speech serve any useful function? Other than to defend the idea of freedom of speech? Can we do without it and still maintain all the good that freedom of speech was meant to protect?

And just to further clarify, I really don't have an opinion on printing images of the Islamic prophet. On one hand, I want to defend their beliefs, but on the other... c'mon... we can't print pictures of Mohammed??

[Jimmy_Blue]

If you had to choose between not letting some guy speak his mind on a controversial subject, or seeing some kid get his head smashed against a wall, which would you choose?

If you had to choose between not letting some guy speak his mind on a controversial subject, or seeing a race rounded up and gassed to death in industrial death camps, which would you choose?

Kevin, you are only considering the cases where freedom of speech means people can say appalling things. What about the other side of it?

[Jimmy_Blue]

Sorry for the double post:

Kevin, if you want this:
I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

Then you have to put up with this:

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

As my wife just said, if you don't like the voice of hatred, you have to drown it out.

[kevin]

"If you had to choose between not letting some guy speak his mind on a controversial subject, or seeing a race rounded up and gassed to death in industrial death camps, which would you choose?"

I would choose to not let that guy speak his mind. Screw freedom of speech!

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Are you saying that it's either freedom of speech, or nothing? Freedom of speech isn't an absolute, unqualified good. As someone who isn't religious, you should appreciate that there probably isn't anything that is. Freedom of speech is a means to achieve something. That "something" is what we should be focusing on. If certain areas of freedom of speech seem to be hurting the well-being of society as a whole, then it's time to make a few changes to it.

"As my wife just said, if you don't like the voice of hatred, you have to drown it out."

Good words to live by. Unfortunately, the 50 people who were killed because of some cartoon couldn't drown it out.

[Tom Foss]

That's a hypothetical question, of course, and its never that simple. But in my mind, allowing intolerance to build is almost as clear cut. I'm almost certain that it will lead to violence. And the way I see it, hate laws is the best we can do to curb intolerance.

But when the government says "it's okay to say X about Group A, but it's not okay to say X about Group B," it is fostering intolerance.

I understand what you're saying. But I think you're making your argument in a vacuum. Ideally, yes, it makes sense. But when you're talking about religion, you can argue that it does deserve to be privileged for many reasons: its traditional prevalence in all cultures, its belief of sacredness, and even (I say this reluctantly) the fact that a lot of people would be willing to kill for it.

Replace "religion" in that passage with "government." The Founders of this nation believed that the right to criticize the government was necessary and fundamental to secure liberty. They recognized that unless the masses have the right to freely criticize precisely those institutions we hold most dear, those institutions with the most prestige and power, then they cannot be safe from tyranny. When you start making concessions to one group over others, when you insulate a group from criticism, you sow the seeds of precisely that sort of tyranny. What you're saying is that instead of condemning the religious fanatics for rioting and murdering, we should condemn those who speak freely and openly for 'provoking' them. You're saying "it's a given that people are going to get irrational and violent over religion, and we have to just accept that. So let's outlaw criticizing religion because that will minimize the instances of irrational violence from the religious nuts." You're validating their behavior, you're basically saying that it's worse to say something critical of Mohammed than to bash someone's head against a brick wall.

Bring it back to hate laws, to the KKK or the redneck fuckheads who killed Matthew Shepard. By the same logic, we could say "if you had to choose between letting two men hold hands in public, or seeing homophobes crucify some kid on a fence, which would you choose?" Or "white people have believed in their inherent genetic superiority for a long time, and they hold it very sacred. Some are willing to kill for it. We should privilege that by forcing black people to use different bathrooms and go to different schools, so white people don't encounter them and bash their heads into walls." You're saying that the people who commit violence are not at fault, but the people who offend their sensibilities are.

And just to clarify, I think that a cartoon that made fun of religion in a humorous way is okay.

Humor is just as subjective as offense. One person may laugh at Kevin Smith's "Buddy Christ," another may find it very offensive, and another might strangle you for displaying it on your dashboard.

I'm talking more about speech that incites hatred against a group of people. Does allowing this kind of speech serve any useful function? Other than to defend the idea of freedom of speech? Can we do without it and still maintain all the good that freedom of speech was meant to protect?

No, we can't, because when you abridge freedom of speech in that way, you're saying that one person's right to not be offended trumps another person's right to speak his or her mind. Once you set that precedent, you open the floodgates. Like I said, offense is wholly subjective. Do we ban nudity in movies because it might offend some people? Do we ban cursing on television or in public because some people might get offended? Where does it stop? These questions are actually being considered in places around the country; there are laws on the books in several places that prohibit cursing in city streets, because it might upset people. Last I checked the First Amendment didn't contain a "right to not get upset about anything."

The thing about freedom of speech is that it's pretty much all-or-nothing. When you start outlawing speech you don't like, or speech that someone doesn't like, you set the precedent for anyone to outlaw any speech they don't like. The First Amendment isn't about protecting unoffensive, milquetoast, nonconfrontational speech. It doesn't exist to protect the speech that no one has a problem with. We don't need a Constitutional Amendment for that. The First Amendment is there to protect the speech you hate, the speech that offends and upsets you, the speech that criticizes what you hold dear. It protects that speech because that's the speech that's actually in danger.

And that's the whole point of the ideal of free speech. It says that the rights of an individual are sovereign, and that no other person's rights trump your own. It is the very foundation of freedom and equality.

[Tom Foss]

Freedom of speech is a means to achieve something. That "something" is what we should be focusing on.

No, I don't think it is. I absolutely think that "freedom of speech" is an absolute good in and of itself. I would go so far as to call it an unalienable right. It is not the means to an end, it is a basic right afforded to all people regardless of race, creed, or condition. It is a fundamental part of liberty; if you cannot freely communicate, if you cannot have the free and open exchange of ideas, then you cannot have a free society.

Unfortunately, the 50 people who were killed because of some cartoon couldn't drown it out.

And the thousands who were killed for speaking their minds under Stalin, or the Spanish Inquisition, or Cromwell's reign of terror, what of them? What of those who lost their jobs, families, friends, and freedoms in the Communist witch-hunt of the McCarthy Era? There are casualties either way; you're suggesting that the 'right' of those rioters to kill 50 people are more important than the right of a cartoonist to speak his mind. You're suggesting that we answer the violation of 50 people's right to life with the violation of one or ten or six billion people's right to speak freely, rather than putting the blame, and any forfeiture of rights, where it belongs: on the oversensitive, overzealous, overreligious rioters. They are the ones violating people's rights (with lethal force), and your solution would advocate that we leave them alone, that we allow them the implied and tacit right to not be offended and to take out their offenses on other people, and that we violate more rights as a solution. Last I checked, two wrongs didn't make a right.

Maybe you're right, and there are people who aren't responsible enough to be trusted with free speech. But if history shows us anything, it's that the government unequivocally cannot be trusted with the control of that same freedom. That only ever ends in bloody revolution.

[Jimmy_Blue]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

You gave the choice, do you choose the right for someone to speak, or the right for the child not to be harmed as a result of that speech. I reframed the question to show that freedom of speech can be good. So in this case, the man is speaking out against anti-semitism, something that would have been controversial in Nazi Germany.

You just chose to shut him up. Congratulations.

[Tom Foss]

To be fair, Jimmy, I was confused by your initial wording as well. I saw what you were getting at, but the wording was fairly vague.

[Kristjan Wager]

Except this wasn’t a victory for free speech. According to the article, the editor was acquitted because the cartoons criticized only fundamentalists, not Muslims or Islam in general. So presumably criticizing Islam would still be a crime.

Actually, you're wrong. It is a victory for free speech. There is a law on the books that someone tried to use against free speech. The court found that it couldn't be used, because the speech was more broad than the narrow target of the law (which I presume is against blasphemy). That is a victory.

Now, most of us would agree that it's just a step in the right direction, and thus was only a victory in a battle in the war for free speech, yet that doesn't mean it isn't a victory.

Every step counts.

[kevin]

"What you're saying is that instead of condemning the religious fanatics for rioting and murdering, we should condemn those who speak freely and openly for 'provoking' them."

"you're basically saying that it's worse to say something critical of Mohammed than to bash someone's head against a brick wall."

"They are the ones violating people's rights (with lethal force), and your solution would advocate that we leave them alone"

I'm not saying any of these things. I favor an approach that tries to calm a highly charged issue. I'm not taking sides. I thought those religious riots were ridiculous, and they deserved to be insulted. But holding a printed picture of Mohammed in front of a rioting Islamic crowd isn't going to do anything useful. The only ideal I'm holding onto is the prevention of unnecessary violence. If those riots don't stop, then I would favor a temporary law that said, three or more Islamic men can't stand around in the street. If it has to be done, then it has to be done.

"I absolutely think that "freedom of speech" is an absolute good in and of itself."

I'm not sure how you can say that. I would take "absolute good" to mean that nothing bad can come out of it. My belief is there's nothing that can be considered absolutely good.

After a terrorist attack, if someone were to come on the radio and say, kill all muslims, kill all muslims ... with emotions and fear running high, some people might actually carry it out. What good can there possibly be to let someone say that? I think free speech is important, but to protect it here seems ridiculous. There's no reason to risk that kind of random violence in order to protect speech that doesn't really seem worth protecting.

You probably agree that just because something is written on a piece of paper and is very old, doesn't make it right. Absolute freedom of speech was a very good idea a long time ago, but in the modern world, it seems nearly impossible for many countries to return to a state where censoring speech can cause that kind of harm. Many countries have decided, by enacting hate laws, that the things that freedom of speech was meant to protect against aren't really that much of an issue anymore. We must be vigilant, because those things can definitely rise up again, but we can begin to think about the negative sides to freedom of speech and cautiously think about what we can do about it.

It's interesting that the United States doesn't have hate laws when so many other countries do. I don't think it's from lack of trying either ... it just looks like the First Amendment is making it difficult.

And the hate laws, as I know it, doesn't say all intolerant speech is bad. It's decided on a case-by-case basis. This is what happened in the French case above. Yes, the cartoon seemed to fall under the hate legislation, but the court decided that freedom of speech should prevail in this case. Maybe if, in the middle of those riots, some magazine put that picture on their cover with the caption "Are you stupid?", then the courts might decide that this specific case was deliberately inflammatory. Or maybe not. Depends on the case.

We don't want to go too far and say that people can't criticize religion in any way. But in the modern world, we live in peaceful societies, where people expect to be able to give a certain level of trust to their governments. We can take a hard look at certain speech, such as promoting the murder of a group of people because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc., and wonder, is that really necessary? Do we really have to protect that?

There are no absolutes. Freedom of speech is a good thing worth protecting, but it's not going to come out right in every single possible case. Modern law allows us to take a pragmatic approach to these kinds of cases. The slippery slope is a risk ... but just because we might go too far, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But I doubt that it can ever get very far. After a certain line, people will raise hell, and we live in countries where our governments will say, yes you're right, we've gone too far. And if they don't, and it really is that bad, we can expect common sense to prevail and that government to be gone in a few years. An imperfect solution, but we can't do much better right now.

[Akusai]

I seem to always find myself on the more difficult side of the argument.

This is because you're (1)making am assertion that is not only unsupportable but anathema to modern, civilized people and (2)trying to disguise your authoritarianism as humanitarianism. You may think that what you're doing is "saving lives," but you're not. You're maybe aiding potential people in possible crises by asserting your will (or, perhaps more specifically, the will of "big brother") to control real people who have harmed no one.

You want to say that people are "too stupid" to be trusted with freedom of speech, which would imply that there are "proper" ways and "improper" ways to utilize that freedom. Then we have this:

They need big brother to come in once in a while and tell them it's a step in the wrong direction.

And who is "big brother?" What does he think is appropriate and inappropriate? Who are you willing to give this absolute power over the "stupid people" who are "inciting violence?" Standards change and mores are fluid and ephemeral, but the second you let "big brother" lay down a law about what can and cannot be said, it takes money and man-hours and a judicial decision at the highest levels to overturn it.

What would you qualify as a "smart" way to use freedom of speech? Seems you'd like people to use freedom of speech by not speaking if they might offend someone else. "Proper" use of your liberty is to not use it at all. It reminds me of something Mark Twain said:

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.

He was being satirical, of course.

You obviously have no faith whatsoever in humanity, so why do you insist on couching your views in "concern for lives?" What matter these people to you? They're all just morons who don't deserve basic freedoms. Hell, you seem to think that an irrational and violent group of muslims is more important than someone speaking out against that irrationality and violence, so why not just let them have a field day with those who are "too stupid" to just keep their mouths shut? Your arrogance and misanthropy (people are too stupid, but presumably you don't count yourself in that) lead to your assertion that speech must be policed and people must be told what to do, for their own good.

We can take a hard look at certain speech, such as promoting the murder of a group of people because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc., and wonder, is that really necessary? Do we really have to protect that?

No it's not "necessary," but is it necessary for me to mention to a friend how I enjoyed last week's episode of Scrubs? It is necessary to call my Mom just to chat and catch up? None of these things are "necessary," if you mean "necessary for the running of society." Unfortunately, we live in a society of individuals, to whom many things of which you don't approve might appear "unnecessary." That doesn't mean you have a right to get rid of them. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to decide what an individual can and cannot be said based on your perception of its necessity or utility or based on another group's perception of its offensiveness.

Focus your attention on the people who actually cause harm and do violence. Leave the rest of us out of your little absolutist fantasy.

But in the modern world, we live in peaceful societies, where people expect to be able to give a certain level of trust to their governments.

Really? Because I missed the part where governments can be trusted to give direct orders and arbitrate morality instead of merely being the grease in the machine of civil society. I must have missed when they earned that trust instead of showing, time and time again over thousands of years, that people in power will almost invariable misuse that power, and usually "for the greater good." I missed the part where it is an imperative for a "modern, peaceful society" that all people give due deference to those in power and just trust that they always know best.

Just do what you're told and it'll all be all right. Big Brother wouldn't lie to you.

This is the view of religionists and authoritarians. It is not a view that has anything good or right or useful to offer people in the modern world.

[Big Al]

Irrationality seems at the core of arguments about religion. My brother-in-law has a PhD in philosophy and prides himself on his incisive, logical debating skills.

However, when visiting last Sunday, I happened to mention my atheism for whatever reason. "I'm so glad you have your own religion," he said, seeming to think this was a devastating salvo.

I said "It's not a religious position not to believe in something without evidence."

My B-i-L then began to harangue me with nothing more than "Oh yes it is," raising his voice louder and louder. Mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was dispatched with the stunning logical rapier of "Don't be stupid."

I walked out. It was as if religion had just turned his brain off. I was not, in his view, to be allowed to deny an imaginary fantasy. I imagine at that point he longed for the return of the Spanish Inquisition and the good old days.

[Tom Foss]

If those riots don't stop, then I would favor a temporary law that said, three or more Islamic men can't stand around in the street. If it has to be done, then it has to be done.

Better yet, you could impose a curfew, so that they couldn't gather after nightfall. And you could confine them to a specific part of the city, so that they won't encounter Christians and possibly start some trouble. You could even make them wear some kind of marker that would show everyone that they're Muslim.

If you see where I'm going with this, you're thinking "Nazi Germany." In fact, I'm talking about Renaissance Vienna, where the Jews were confined to ghettos, constrained by curfew, and forced to wear red hats when in public. The point is, this sort of thing has been tried many times before; it doesn't prevent problems, it plants the seeds for greater ones. And the laws are never temporary.

Once you give the government license to infringe upon freedoms, they're not going to relinquish that ability.

I'm not sure how you can say that. I would take "absolute good" to mean that nothing bad can come out of it. My belief is there's nothing that can be considered absolutely good.

Using that definition, I suppose you're right. But I'm using "absolute good" to mean that the lack of it is absolutely bad, in that no good can come of it.

After a terrorist attack, if someone were to come on the radio and say, kill all muslims, kill all muslims ... with emotions and fear running high, some people might actually carry it out.

And people did carry out that sort of thing. And people did it whether or not the radio was prodding them to.

But saying "kill all Muslims," especially in that situation, is a lot more like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater than criticizing a religion.

I think free speech is important, but to protect it here seems ridiculous. There's no reason to risk that kind of random violence in order to protect speech that doesn't really seem worth protecting.

The problem is that the speech which doesn't seem worth protecting is precisely the speech that needs to be protected. The speech that everyone agrees "hey, that ought to be protected" is in no danger. It's the speech that offends and upsets people that's in danger, and that's the reason we have a Constitutional protection on it.

Turn it around a little. Ever since 9/11, officials in the government have been telling the American people that dissent puts the troops in danger and emboldens the enemies, that people who are against the war are putting our troops in danger and are just as bad as the terrorists, that peace protesters are guilty of treason. To this administration, speech against the government 'doesn't seem worth protecting.' They can justify silencing it by saying it would prevent unnecessary violence. After all, if you listen to commentators like Ann Coulter and Robert Novak, you can see the sort of fanatical, violent hatred some people feel at those who disagree openly with the President. And by your reasoning, we should willingly give them the ability to outlaw dissenting speech, we should be happy that they're trying to protect our troops from unnecessary violence, etc. Are you willing to trust George Bush with a 'temporary' law declaring dissenting speech a felony? Or treason?

Again, this is why all speech, except that which directly causes harm (shouting fire yadda yadda) must be protected. "Offensive speech" is a subjective quality, and while the offended may get violent, we can't allow personal preferences to become privileged over individual rights.

You probably agree that just because something is written on a piece of paper and is very old, doesn't make it right.

I do agree. But just because an idea is old doesn't mean it doesn't still apply, either.

Absolute freedom of speech was a very good idea a long time ago, but in the modern world, it seems nearly impossible for many countries to return to a state where censoring speech can cause that kind of harm.

Search "Tienamen Square" on Google China.

We must be vigilant, because those things can definitely rise up again, but we can begin to think about the negative sides to freedom of speech and cautiously think about what we can do about it.

The downside of all freedom is risk. The more freedom you have, the more you are prone to risk. Yes, the government could make us very, very safe by eliminating freedoms, but personally I'll take the chance.

it just looks like the First Amendment is making it difficult.

Thank FSM for small, noodly miracles.

We can take a hard look at certain speech, such as promoting the murder of a group of people because of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc., and wonder, is that really necessary? Do we really have to protect that?

Yes, yes we do. Now, if I go out on a nationally-syndicated radio show and say "go out and kill the next Muslim you see," and someone actually does it, then I should be held accountable. Depending on the actual wording, the kind of case, and the quality of lawyer, this could mean a major lawsuit or it might mean some jailtime for reckless endangerment or accessory to manslaughter or something along those lines. I should have every right to say it, but rights also come with responsibilities. If my speech directly causes grievous harm, then I should be held responsible.

There are no absolutes.

That's an absolute.

The slippery slope is a risk ... but just because we might go too far, doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I disagree. This is about fundamental ideals and basic human rights. There is no such thing as not going too far when you're abridging basic rights.

But I doubt that it can ever get very far. After a certain line, people will raise hell, and we live in countries where our governments will say, yes you're right, we've gone too far.

Something along the lines of 70-80% of Americans oppose the war and the upcoming troop surge. The administration recognizes that 20,000 new troops will not bring the war in Iraq any closer to being "won." Yet, they push onward with the plan. No, I don't think the government will say "yes, you're right, we've gone too far." They didn't say that about warrantless wiretaps of domestic phone calls. They didn't say that about calling dissenters "traitors." This government doesn't care about the people.

And if you doubt that censorship can get very far in the modern age, take a look at some of the dictatorships around the world, the theocracies and monarchies where free speech is a pipe dream. We're fairly free of it in the Western world, but that's precisely because we have these idealized freedoms laid out in indelible ink for us. When you let the government tell you that some speech is unacceptable, when you give away a basic right, you can't expect them to just hand it back when you ask for it. If the government decides that dissent against the government is treason, how do you get the right back? Vote them out in the next election? Do you think a government which will imprison you for saying "the President is a tool" or somesuch will have any compunctions about "delaying" or "postponing" elections? No, once you get in the habit of giving up essential freedoms for temporary safety, you'd better be ready to give them all up. Because there's nothing that many in the government would like more than to gut that First Amendment, and the Fourth one, and the Fifth one, and definitely the Fourteenth one, and so on, and so on.

It sounds like a slippery slope, and to a degree it is, but there are plenty of people advocating just this sort of thing right now. In a world where electronic voting machines can be easily hacked to steal elections, where there has been a motion on the floor of Congress to repeal the term limits amendment since the days of Reagan, where a domestic spying program is already in place and hundreds of citizens and immigrants have been held without due process in Guantanamo Bay for committing no crimes, in a world where the President has said repeatedly that he doesn't think he has to answer to anyone, where the highest authorities in the nation flout the Geneva Conventions and international law and federal law and legal precedent on a daily basis, in this world you have to cling to your freedoms with all your strength, because otherwise you might as well say goodbye to them forever. Melodramatic? Maybe. But frighteningly true.

[Tom Foss]

One correction: it's Venice, not Vienna. My bad.

[David D.G.]

Tom Foss,

BRAVO! Man, that was beautiful. Maybe YOU should run for office!

~David D.G.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Tom:
To be fair, Jimmy, I was confused by your initial wording as well. I saw what you were getting at, but the wording was fairly vague.

I was thinking about that last night but sleep became more important than clarification, but yes it was confusing. Here's a re-wording:

If you had to choose between not letting some guy speak his mind on a controversial subject where it would result in violence to him and his innocent family members, friends and acquaintances; or seeing a race rounded up and gassed to death in industrial death camps, which would you choose?

Slightly better, but still clumsy.

[Kristjan Wager]

(1)making am assertion that is not only unsupportable but anathema to modern, civilized people

Since every country, civilized or otherwise, have laws that limits free speech, I'd say that it's a rather unsupportable to state that limiting free speech is "anathema to modern, civilized people".

[Jimmy_Blue]

Kristjan.

Just because there is a law for it, doesn't mean that I like it.

Nearly every country has some law against cannabis use for recreational purposes, but I don't like it.

[Kristjan Wager]

Just because there is a law for it, doesn't mean that I like it.

True, but it does show that it's not "anathema to modern, civilized people" - unless you of course define "modern, civilized people" as people who are against such laws.

[Jimmy_Blue]

No, you missed the point.

You can still be a modern civilised person and oppose certain laws, their mere existence does not mean that they are accepted by people.

[Kristjan Wager]

Jimmy, I quite agree with you. However, your orignal claim was much more than that. You said that such things were anathema to civilized people - in other words, you can't be civilized without being opposed to such laws. That is a statement I find somewhat problematic.

Tom: excellent, excellent points. I think kevin is confusing free speech with direct threats - which as far as I know, ARE treated differently by the law. His false analogy of "free speech vs. head bashing" is a ridiculous straw man, even he admits. It's not about arguing "which is better". That's just silly, and as far as I'm concerned, off topic!
I'm in favor of people being kind and politically correct as much as can be practical. We should be considerate to each other. But you CAN NOT legislate that! Nor can you put limits on the freedom of the press. As far as I'm concerned, if a political cartoon isn't shocking in some way, it's not a good political cartoon! Sure, the Mohammed cartoon crosses some lines. But those lines are INDIVIDUALLY drawn! I was kind of offended, but that's what makes it a good cartoon. Not my favorite, but it's doing its job - expressing some fear developing in the western world. Political cartoons DO NOT advocate action - they're merely satirical. You don't think Monty Python offended TONS of people? But thankfully the shows survive to be seen. I'm not putting the cartoon in their league, but you start censoring, then where to stop? It's a slippery slope, then suddenly our most treasured aspects of free society are GONE!

madaha

[Jimmy_Blue]

Kristjan. I think that was what Akusai said, not me so I'm not going to defend what he said, he's more than capable of doing that.

What I posted was my interpretation of it. If that's not what he meant, I'm sure we'll get over it.

[Skeptico]

Kristjan:

Re: Actually, you're wrong. It is a victory for free speech. There is a law on the books that someone tried to use against free speech. The court found that it couldn't be used, because the speech was more broad than the narrow target of the law (which I presume is against blasphemy). That is a victory.

Yes, I think I see what you mean. OK I agree it was a small victory for a narrowly defined version of free speech. But if I understood the article correctly, the editor didn’t have the freedom to make fun of religion per-se, only religion when it is used to support terrorism. If he had just been making fun of Islam he could have gone to jail for six months. For one, I believe that is wrong – as I wrote, religion should be the first thing you can make fun of. And second, the religious nuts are even protesting this restricted version of free speech.

So I’m not sure this is a step in the right direction. I suppose it depends where you’re starting from. If this case had been in (say) Iran, I would say perhaps this was a step in the right direction. But as it was in France – a western democracy – I would have hoped they were already starting from a place where blasphemy was not illegal. Because if we allow people even to consider blasphemy a crime, we are on a very slippery slope.

[Prometheus]

I am concerned that it seems that the court ruled only that the cartoons were not an insult to Islam, rather than ruling that it was legal to insult Islam.

If we are accord special protection to religious sensibilities, then where are we to draw the line? Is it legal for me to ridicule US televangelists? That is a group that seems to cry out for ridicule.

I suspect - in my cynical little heart - that the ruling was an attempt to both keep the peace with France's explosive muslim population AND keep from perpetrating a gross miscarriage of justice. The day that France (or any other country) jails a person for ridiculing Islam (or any other religion) is the day they have accepted the inevitability of Islamic Law.

It may happen eventually, but it didn't happen this time.

As for laws against "hate speech" - these are practically impossible to enforce in any self-consistent manner. There is not a single thing of substance that I could say that would not be offensive to SOMEONE (and even "Hello" might offend somebody), and it's but a short step from being "offended" to claiming "hate speech".

Clearly, there are limits to free speech - the time-worn classics being yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and incitement to riot. Every state has limited free speech in some way, through criminal or civil laws (libel, slander). However, since the 20th century, most of the Western world has wisely kept away from criminalizing religious criticism.

Until now?

Prometheus

[kevin]

Search "Tienamen Square" on Google China.

When I thought up of a list of countries whose people trust their governments, China was not on my list. The US actually isn't a very good candidate for that list either.

Okay, I went too far with the ban on Muslims congregating. A city-wide curfew may have been a better way of putting it. My point is that sometimes we need to put certain freedoms on hold for the short-term good.

The whole slippery slope theory is sound, in theory. But I'm finding that it just doesn't work that way. Take a look at countries that have allowed assisted-suicide. The fears that people had about allowing this kind of thing, many of them based on the slippery slope argument, weren't realized.

And to see my point of view, you need to see the personal stories of people who have been victimized by sweeping laws that don't allow any room for exceptions. Although these exceptions will be few, we are imposing an unfair burden on people who find themselves victimized because the law doesn't protect them.

Example: Robert Latimer, who killed his 12-year old disabled daughter, who had lived a lifetime of chronic pain and had no hope of ever living a pain-free life. His intentions weren't in question... the jury agreed that he was a decent person trying to do the most compassionate thing. He lived one of the worse nightmares a parent can have, and his decision to end his daughters life was based purely on compassion, and based on part on a system which forced him to make the decision on his own. He was a loving, caring parent who wanted only to end a lifetime of suffering for his daughter. He was found guilty, but the lower court managed to give him a very light sentence using some clever legal maneuvering. However, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that the law allows no exceptions for first-degree murder, and that he would be required to serve the life sentence and mandatory jail for a minimum of 10 years.

He was victimized by a law that was short-sided enough to actually believe there can be no exceptions to first-degree murder. Here, an individual is suffering the same punishment that some violent, cold-hearted killer would receive, a punishment that was obviously not meant for him.

It sounds like a slippery slope, and to a degree it is, but there are plenty of people advocating just this sort of thing right now. In a world where electronic voting machines can be easily hacked to steal elections, where there has been a motion on the floor of Congress to repeal the term limits amendment since the days of Reagan, where a domestic spying program is already in place and hundreds of citizens and immigrants have been held without due process in Guantanamo Bay for committing no crimes, in a world where the President has said repeatedly that he doesn't think he has to answer to anyone, where the highest authorities in the nation flout the Geneva Conventions and international law and federal law and legal precedent on a daily basis, in this world you have to cling to your freedoms with all your strength, because otherwise you might as well say goodbye to them forever. Melodramatic? Maybe. But frighteningly true.

I was right. The US should not be on that list.

One thing I really don't understand is how the "clear and present danger" exception to free speech worked itself into American law. The First Amendment clearly allows free speech, no matter what it is. It doesn't say "free speech unless there's clear and present danger." Anyone have an answer to this? Right now, it looks to me like you're breaking your own First Amendment ... the part about free speech is clear and leaves no room for exceptions. Yet, somehow an exception was created. Is it just because creating this exception made sense? American laws seem to agree with me: that free speech isn't an absolute. There are exceptions. See what I'm getting at?

Take a look at a Canadian example... the constitution pretty much gives the same rights as the American one, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So that's how some of these laws can be worked around. In the American example, I don't see how you can create an exception for a law that basically implies that you're not allowed to have exceptions.

I don't support letting religious fanatics do whatever they want. I don't support a complete ban on saying any bad word against religion. I believe in free speech and believe that is an important cornerstone in any democratic society. But I'm just trying to get you to recognize that there are exceptions. And please, just because I say there are exceptions, it doesn't mean that I believe that these exceptions include throwing Muslims in concentration camps to keep them from rioting. Hate laws have been carefully thought out and continue to be scrutinized to make sure that it never goes too far. They are created and maintained mindful of all the negative, harmful effects that it can have if used unjustly.

[Kristjan Wager]

However, since the 20th century, most of the Western world has wisely kept away from criminalizing religious criticism.

Prometheus, respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about. Most European countries have anti-blasphemy laws on the books, though they are rarely (or never) enforced.

In general, I think the problem with the arguments used here is that they are starting at the other end of the free speech scale. Let me try to illustrate. The scale can be summed up thus:

No religious criticism allowed -> Some religious criticism allowed -> Most religious criticism allowed -> All religious criticism allowed.

The US is in the 'All religious criticism allowed' part of the scale, while France has just moved from the 'Some religious criticism allowed' to the 'Most religious criticism allowed' part of the scale.
Yes, it's not where we want Western countries to be on the scale, yet it's a move in the right direction.

So, Skeptico, it's not a "slippery slope" - they are already downhill, and are trying to move up.
France are not allowing "people even to consider blasphemy a crime" - it is a crime in France. This ruling makes it harder to enforce the law broadly, which is a good thing. It's a step in the right direction.

[Kristjan Wager]

Prometheus, my remarks came out more harshly than I wanted them to. I appologize.

The sad fact is that many, if not all, Western countries, including my own native Denmark, have anti-blasphemy laws on the books. In many countries they are not enforced, but there is always the possibility that they can be used.

[Skeptico]

Kristjan: I didn’t know that. You’re right then – it is a step in the right direction for them. They’ve got quite a way to go then.

[kevin]

And who is "big brother?" What does he think is appropriate and inappropriate? Who are you willing to give this absolute power over the "stupid people" who are "inciting violence?"

Big brother is a government, composed of elected people, who work in a system that encourages opposing opinions and moderation, and are elected by a largely rational people.

I live in a different country than you. I trust my government, but you don't seem to trust yours. I guess that's why we can't see eye to eye on this.

You obviously have no faith whatsoever in humanity

I don't. Look at what happens in a place without a stable government. Wars, warlords, mass atrocities. I have faith in humanity only when there is a freely elected democratic government instituted among them ... among other circumstances.

They're all just morons who don't deserve basic freedoms...
Hell, you seem to think that an irrational and violent group of muslims is more important than someone speaking out against that irrationality and violence ...
That doesn't mean you have a right to get rid of them.

I can't argue with you if you're going to put words in my mouth. Anyone who thinks what you said above is obviously irrational. Are you trying to make me out to be irrational by saying that I believe those things?

Your arrogance and misanthropy (people are too stupid, but presumably you don't count yourself in that) lead to your assertion that speech must be policed and people must be told what to do, for their own good.

Yes, you're finally getting it. But I never said that I should be the one who decides what's right and what's wrong. In case you haven't noticed, there's a highly scrutinized, lengthy process legislated by laws which are open to being changed, involving many people, experts, smart people, and groups who presume their "arrogance and misanthropy" gives them the right to decide what is best. And I agree with them.

(1)making am assertion that is not only unsupportable but anathema to modern, civilized people

Since every country, civilized or otherwise, have laws that limits free speech, I'd say that it's a rather unsupportable to state that limiting free speech is "anathema to modern, civilized people". (Kristjan's reply).

Non-exhaustive list of countries with anti-hate laws - from Wikipedia... sorry :)
- UK
- Germany
- Ireland
- Canada
- Iceland
- Australia
- New Zealand
- France
- Singapore
- California seems to encompass hate speech through their hate crimes laws.
- seven European countries prohibiting Holocaust denial

[kevin]

Oh, and Tom, thanks for this debate. It's fun and really forcing me to think.

[Skeptico]

btw, I found this portion of a debate featuring Christopher Hitchins to be of interest and relevance to the free speech discussion.

It's 20 minutes long, but worth the listen IMO.

[Prometheus]

Kristjan,

Actually, I was aware that many - if not most - European countries have blasphemy laws on the books. That was why I hedged a bit and said "...since the 20th century...".

Choosing to not enforce outdated laws is a part of Western civilization (I hope). The same is seen in many other aspects of the law, such as the many jurisdictions that have laws prohibiting certain sexual behaviors, spitting on the sidewalk, driving an automobile without a flagman walking in front (recently removed from the laws of my current state of residence), etc.

I'm curious. Have there been other examples of anti-blasphemy laws being used in the 20th and 21st centuries? I was not aware of any, but my knowledge is far from exhaustive on that topic. Or is this legal case in France the first in a long time?

I was under the impression that blasphemy laws had not been used to prosecute anyone in France since the 1800's and that the case in question was drawing on a law that had not been used for over a century.

I suppose that the mere existence of the blasphemy laws will be a problem, now that religious extremists have learned how to use them.

Prometheus

[Kristjan Wager]

I'm curious. Have there been other examples of anti-blasphemy laws being used in the 20th and 21st centuries? I was not aware of any, but my knowledge is far from exhaustive on that topic. Or is this legal case in France the first in a long time?

There is a case going on in Spain right now

A similar case might come in Russia

There was the Whitehouse v. Lemon case in England in 1976-77.

A bit more information can be found in this article

[kevin]

From that case going on in Spain:

"The intention of the theatrical production, according to Bassi himself, is to offend anyone who holds religious beliefs, which is forbidden under Spanish law"

Okay ... shit. If that is what the law actually forbids ... "offend anyone who holds religious beliefs" then maybe I need to rethink my position on whether some countries can go too far with this. I wonder what the exact wording of the law is... it CAN'T be simply "you can't offend someone who's religious." What if you call someone an idiot, without making any reference to his religion? Is this some sort of antiquated law that's being enforced, or is this actually a modern hate speech law? If it sounds like what it is, then Spain is definitely one place where curtailing free speech has gone too far.

But I still believe free speech needs an asterisk next to it. You can say whatever you want*.

[Akusai]

I can't argue with you if you're going to put words in my mouth. Anyone who thinks what you said above is obviously irrational. Are you trying to make me out to be irrational by saying that I believe those things?

I admit I was overreading (well, misreading, really) what you were saying when I made that comment, but I think the point remains: if you think people are so incredibly stupid that they don't even deserve the right to talk without someone being there to make sure they're saying the "right" things, why are you so interested in protecting their lives?

At least I was not misreading your arrogance and misanthropy.

I understand that, not being American, you feel less need to be mistrustful of your government, but I still don't understand your level of trust for them. You trust the government but not common people? The government, which is made of up people, people no better or different than the rest of the people, and you trust them to do right where you believe the dumbass masses would fail? All the government is is a few people from those dumbass masses with the power to order the rest of the dumbasses around. How do they deserve more of your trust than the rest of the people?

Your list of countries (and one state) with hate speech laws and laws against Holocaust denial is undebateable; those countries do have those laws, and I disagree with those laws wherever they show up. Criminalizing unpopular speech (which is what those laws do; they have goals apart from that, but that is the essence of the laws) is wrong, and, as Tom has said repeatedly, unpopular speech is the only type of speech that needs protecting. America wouldn't need a first amendment if everything everybody said was agreeable to everyone else. People have a right to their opinions, no matter how wrongheaded or dangerous they may be, so long as they do not act on what violent opinions they may have. Hate speech harms no one. Racist acts of violence do. That is where the crime lies.

Your authoritarian stance treats grown men and women like children and criminalizes victimless acts so you can feel more cushy in your little safety net. You say that "big brother" is (essentially) a government elected of the people, by the people, and for the people, but your wish is that they will enact your view of free speech on everyone else. I don't see how you can deny that you feel you have the right to police people's speech. Passing the buck to the government that enacts your views as law is disingenuous. This is where I claim that civilized people have no need for your views: civilized people do not try to enforce their will, by legislation or otherwise, on other free citizens. That is a view that was supposed to have gone out with the Enlightenment, but unfortunately has come back in a worrisome way on both ends of the left-right political spectrum, albeit for different reasons. You speak about the problems of intolerance, but fail to see that legislating against the free expression of ideas, however unpopular they may be, is intolerant on its face.

But I still believe free speech needs an asterisk next to it. You can say whatever you want*.

Then it isn't free at all! Don't you get that?

[Tom Foss]

Okay, I went too far with the ban on Muslims congregating. A city-wide curfew may have been a better way of putting it. My point is that sometimes we need to put certain freedoms on hold for the short-term good.

Call me a Franklinist then: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The greater your freedom, the greater your risk, but that's the price you pay. And I think it's absolutely worth that price.

The whole slippery slope theory is sound, in theory. But I'm finding that it just doesn't work that way. Take a look at countries that have allowed assisted-suicide. The fears that people had about allowing this kind of thing, many of them based on the slippery slope argument, weren't realized.

That's true; but the difference is, assisted-suicide laws increase freedom. They give the people more liberty than they had before. When the people are given greater control over their own lives, you shouldn't expect a slippery slope to come true. That being said, most of the slippery-slope arguments I've seen about assisted suicide feature the government or the doctors deciding who deserves to live and die. The worry is that "if you allow a terminally-ill person to commit suicide with help, then the doctors could help terminate a hypochondriac" or something, and I've seen more sinister ones, where the government has enforced euthanasia. These arguments only work when they assume that people's freedom will be abridged somehow (or that doctors have no code of ethics).

Whereas, if you look at the historical and contemporary examples of governments abridging freedoms, the slippery slope looks a lot more likely.

And to see my point of view, you need to see the personal stories of people who have been victimized by sweeping laws that don't allow any room for exceptions. Although these exceptions will be few, we are imposing an unfair burden on people who find themselves victimized because the law doesn't protect them.

Show me a situation where a person has been victimized by a law which allows him greater freedom, which protects his basic individual freedoms.

He was victimized by a law that was short-sided enough to actually believe there can be no exceptions to first-degree murder. Here, an individual is suffering the same punishment that some violent, cold-hearted killer would receive, a punishment that was obviously not meant for him.

And look at the content of that law: it removes a person's freedom to decide when they want to die. It abridges a person's individual freedom, and does so for the "greater good" of making murder easier to prosecute, and defending the "sanctity of life." My whole point here has been that laws which abridge freedoms are generally bad; this story actually better serves my purposes than yours. You're suggesting, after all, that we take the rights of the people (to die, to decide that a peer is not guilty of murder, to speek freely) and put them in the hands of the same government which victimized this guy.

I was right. The US should not be on that list.

And if the US shouldn't be on that list, who should? What government is so trustworthy that you'd freely give them your freedoms and trust them not to abuse that power?

The rights of the people should be under the control of the people. The only way to do that is to take control out of the hands of government.

Anyone have an answer to this? Right now, it looks to me like you're breaking your own First Amendment ... the part about free speech is clear and leaves no room for exceptions. Yet, somehow an exception was created. Is it just because creating this exception made sense? American laws seem to agree with me: that free speech isn't an absolute. There are exceptions. See what I'm getting at?

The old adage is that my freedom to swing your fist ends at your face. One individual's freedoms end where another individual begins; speech which presents a clear and present danger is an infringement upon other people's basic rights to life and liberty. It is not protected because it violates the rights of other individuals.

And again, all it means is that rights come with responsibilities. You can say whatever you want, but you may have to face consequences for the results of that speech.

What your idea would mean is that instead of refusing to protect speech which violates another person's rights, we refuse to protect speech which violates another person's taste.

Incidentally, the "clear and present danger" clause was developed in the court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The court ruled that Schenck's dissent against the WWI draft was not protected speech because it was wartime. It presented, said Justice Holmes, a clear and present danger to the government and their wartime recruitment efforts. I think this is a grievous error and a travesty of justice; the ability to criticize the government regardless of war or peace is one of the ideals that this country was founded on. And in this case, Holmes's "fire in a crowded theater" analogy simply does not hold. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater infringes upon the basic rights of individual people; speaking out against the government 'infringes' upon the government's preferences. The government itself does not have rights, it is not a person.

Thankfully, the 1969 court agreed with me, and Schenck was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which determined that the only non-protected speech was that which "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Which is a far more literal and valid interpretation of "clear and present danger."

So that's how some of these laws can be worked around. In the American example, I don't see how you can create an exception for a law that basically implies that you're not allowed to have exceptions.

It's not an exception, it's a recognition of the concept of individual rights. It says that no one person's rights take precedence over the rights of any other person. Your right to speak your mind ends when it directly causes me harm.

But I'm just trying to get you to recognize that there are exceptions.

And I'm trying to get you to realize that when you start saying that basic, unalienable rights have "exceptions," and once you allow the government to decide what those excpetions are, you start down a terrible path toward tyranny and oppression.

Kristjan:

Prometheus, respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about. Most European countries have anti-blasphemy laws on the books, though they are rarely (or never) enforced.

And, as he said, since the 20th century the western world has avoided those laws. I'd bet that most of them have been on the books since before 1900.

Back to Kevin:

I live in a different country than you. I trust my government, but you don't seem to trust yours. I guess that's why we can't see eye to eye on this.

You're Canadian, I gather, from your earlier comments. And that makes sense. America was born out of rebellion against a perceived tyrant and the basic ideals of the country were determined by people who had a profound distrust of people in positions of power. It's why they put all the power in the hands of the people as opposed to the government. Canada, as so often seems to be the case, is a bit more laid-back.

Oh, and Tom, thanks for this debate. It's fun and really forcing me to think.

Same here. I'm glad that this continues to be civil; such discussions often aren't.

But I still believe free speech needs an asterisk next to it. You can say whatever you want*.

*So long as it doesn't directly infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

[Kristjan Wager]

Okay ... shit. If that is what the law actually forbids ... "offend anyone who holds religious beliefs" then maybe I need to rethink my position on whether some countries can go too far with this.

Kevin it doesn't say that. Spain free speech is limited to protect the "rights of others", which this might somehow fall under (personally I doubt it).

And, as he said, since the 20th century the western world has avoided those laws. I'd bet that most of them have been on the books since before 1900.

The current German law is from 1969 (it was broaden from a previous law that only "protected" Christians).

The Dutch law is from 1932, the Norwegian law is also from the thirties (though not used since 1936 aparently). The Italian law is from the twenties.

The Finnish anti-blasphemy provisions were last updated in 1999, and is still used.

This page has some more information.

[Kristjan Wager]

A couple of other comments on this issue - I am in full agreement that anti-blasphemy laws and similar laws should be removed. Like most Europeans, I'm not a free speech absolutist - I think that the Danish anti-racism paragraph has merit (it protects a group of people against defamation), though I won't have a problem with seeing it go.
On the other hand I find US laws too lenient in some cases - libel against public figures (and semi-public figures) are often allowed because the protection of free speech goes before the protection of the individual. That I find problematic, since legal action is often the only way for such people to clear their names.

[Kristjan Wager]

On the other hand, there are many US limits to free speech that I find horrifying.
Until recently, there was the COPA, which has just been blocked by US courts. That law was from 1998, and was allowed to stay on the books for nearly 10 years (though not enforced).

Other examples are the so-called "free speech zones", which are still allowed to go unchallenged, and the arresting of people wearing certain t-shirts (I wanted to post more links related to this, but it made the comment get caught in the spam-filter).

And don't get me started on the FCC rules.

[Tom Foss]

Until recently, there was the COPA, which has just been blocked by US courts. That law was from 1998, and was allowed to stay on the books for nearly 10 years (though not enforced).

Other examples are the so-called "free speech zones", which are still allowed to go unchallenged, and the arresting of people wearing certain t-shirts (I wanted to post more links related to this, but it made the comment get caught in the spam-filter).

And don't get me started on the FCC rules.

Agreed on all counts, Kristjan. I'm sure we all have some choice words for the FCC. I can think of seven right off the top of my head...

[Infophile]

Wow, now this is an epic thread. Kudos to the great arguments made by Tom, Kistjan, and Akusai. And Kevin, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Now, a few comments of my own:

I went to look up exactly what the anti-hate law was here in Canada. Apparently, it forbids "advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group.'" It makes exceptions in the case of matters of "public debate and religious doctrine," which presumably means if you can start a big public debate on whether genocide is okay, it's alright to advocate it. (Though the exception for religious doctrine is quite nice to see. How often do you see people putting in an exception in the law against religion?)

This law is not only still on the books, but it seems to still be acknowledged. As recently as 1990, it was confirmed to be constitutional in the case R. v. Keegstra, so someone breaking it could expect to be prosecuted.

To be honest, knowing that a law like that is on the books is a little frightening. I know I'd never advocate genocide (except possibly in satire or sarcasm), but "inciting hate" is a bit broader. What if I call all Christians idiots for believing in the religion? I'm not attacking the doctrine, so the exception doesn't help, and calling them idiots overlaps in a very loose sense with inciting hatred (especially if I hate idiots). Of course, I probably wouldn't be prosecuted, because I'm a virtual nobody. But if someone of authority made such a claim, they could be brought up on charges, and that's just not right.

The law was defended on the basis that it works contrary to Canada's value of "multiculturalism" (which is actually coded into law) and that there's little value to the speech. It's this latter part that bugs me. Who's to decide what speech has little value? Can we outlaw any speech that might cause possible harm to potential people under the justification that it has "little value"?

Unfortunately, the freedom of speech infringements don't stop there. The legal precedent established in this case allowed the R. v. Butler decision, which said that it was alright to outlaw certain obscene materials, including pornography which "degrades women" (who's to judge that, I wonder?). And this is exactly the problem. Once you ban one type of speech (advocating genocide and inciting hatred), you open the floodgates to ban other types of speech (obscenities). It's only one more step for the government to judge that some other type of speech is obscene (many episodes of South Park come to mind, but particularly the ending of Cartoon Wars part II, and that's exactly the type of speech that needs to be protected).