Freedom speech issues

[Prospero]

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201162112350580926.html

[Ben]

Speaking of freedom of speech. It was ridiculous last year that Canadians tried to stop Ann Coulter from speaking. But then, again, Canada doesn't have freedom of speech.
In Canada, well, the state decides what truth is. And if you go against that, well, you can be charged.
Great thing about being in America: we've got freedom of speech.

YouTube - ‪O'Reilly: Ann Coulter Shunned in Canada‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i8Wtz8COe8)

[Ben]

YouTube - ‪Noam Chomsky on Freedom of Information and of Speech‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHrW8IPwFIg)

[trish]

In Canada, well, the state decides what truth is.Really? I didn't know that. So every proposed law of physics is brought before the Parliament and then gets signed into law by the Prime Minister? When you exaggerate, it's difficult to know the precise bounds where truth ends and falsehood begins. It was Ann, not the Canadian government, who decided to cancel her Ottawa speech in March of 2010. She surmised that spreading her propaganda wasn't worth the risk of the response it might provoke.

[russtafa]

we have had different people bared from speaking here and i have heard it is worse in the U.K

[robertlouis]

we have had different people bared from speaking here and i have heard it is worse in the U.K

Well yes - we tend not to believe that allowing firebrands on either side of the political spectrum to whip up religious or racial hatred to the extent that it incites violence is actually a public virtue.

Freedom of speech with socially agreed norms of tolerance, fine. Open season for crackpots to yell loud enough to get other people killed, not fine. So for me at least, for "worse", read "better."

I know where I'd rather live.

Oh, and should we check the comparative homicide numbers for the US, Canad and the UK?

Thought not.

[Prospero]

Dutch uphold the rights of their homegrown hater.

http://aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/06/201162355047349463.html

[Yvonne183]

I'm sory, I got lost for a moment, I thought this was a topic about Femdom.

The main question is who decides what is hate speech and what isn't. This will have different meanings from different people.

It's sort of like the argument about pornography. There must be someone to hear the speech or to view the porn in order to make a ruling if it is bad or not. And if this person can view the porn or read the speech without becoming infected with hate or harm, doing damaging things then why can't everyone behave in the same manor and listen to the speech or view the porn without turning into raving lunatics or sex fiends. Hope that made sense.

[robertlouis]

I'm sory, I got lost for a moment, I thought this was a topic about Femdom.

The main question is who decides what is hate speech and what isn't. This will have different meanings from different people.

It's sort of like the argument about pornography. There must be someone to hear the speech or to view the porn in order to make a ruling if it is bad or not. And if this person can view the porn or read the speech without becoming infected with hate or harm, doing damaging things then why can't everyone behave in the same manor and listen to the speech or view the porn without turning into raving lunatics or sex fiends. Hope that made sense.

It certainly does, Yvonne. And it's a great articulation of the test that's needed to decide what's acceptable and what isn't.

I understand and applaud Americans' loyalty to their constitution, as fine a statement of national values and aspirations as has ever been written, but surely you can see that allowing rabblerousers complete freedom to say whatever they want has caused and will continue to cause problems.

Pastor Jones burns the Quran. He didn't fire the bullets that murdered westerners in Afghanistan later, but he may as well have loaded the fundamentalists' guns for them. Is the right to free speech really worth going to such extremes?

[Prospero]

Freedom of speech in the UK? Hmmmmm... well we have barred quite a few of the more poisonous radical imams (eventually) and stopped the Dutch hatemonger Geert Wlders from coming into the country to show his hateful anti-Muslim film. We do allow parties like the National front and British National Party to exist and march and - if they field enough candidates - have access (limited) to the national broadcast media. But the general view is that they condemn themselves with their cretinous level of politics. The real ugly race hate people exist outside of the framework of politics.

Because of controls on the media - being loosened all the time - we don't have the sort of shock jocks on the radio that the US has nor such bileful characters as Glen Beck of Anne Coulter. (Yet). And Christian fundamentalism of the sort widespread in the US simply has virtually no currency in the UK. The Christian right doesn't exist and Christians managed only a half dozen or so protestors he they staged the musical about that controversial US TV show host (forgot the name) a few years ago. The greater intolerance comes from religious minorities. Sikhs protested and stopped a play denigrating their guru in London a few years back and - of course - sections of the Muslim community are a tinderbox when it comes to perceived insults. it was a british asian writer, Salman Rushdie remember who gained himself a fatwa for his book The Satanic Verses widely perceived by even moderate Muslims as an attack on the prophet.

We also have laws which mean those who discriminate against or insult people on the basis of their gender or religion can be prosecuted.

[Yvonne183]

I know there are nut jobs and such but the question I gave was who is considered a nut job. I agree, the guy burning the bible is one and there are quite a few real nut jobs as well in the world. My concern is the people who might be what can be described as borderline hate. Who decides if that person should be banned or let them speak.

And most examples given above about people who hate are people on the right side, maybe even white right side of society. On one hand an example is given that the guy burning the bible is sort of responsible for people being killed by those who were offended by the burning. If that is so, then is an artist who mocks Christianity also responsible if someone was to kill because they felt offended? So far just the opposite happens here in the US. The civil liberties union defends the anti-Christian art as free speech, yet insult a muslim and it's offensive. If this banning of hate speech is to be correctly done then all hate speech has to be banned not just from one section of society.

It's slippery slope once banning speech is concerned. It will always be the people in power who will decide what speech is hate and what isn't. As I said, the above examples were of the extreme hate people. There will be others banned fro not being so extreme, I never trust the Gov't to do what is right, they have a lousy track record.

[russtafa]

Once banning something the powers that be can then ban any thing they find a threat and that's left or right

[trish]

Therefore no one should be given the authority to ban anything. Instead the authority should remain with those who can give it in the first place, the people. That why here we have a government of, by and for the people. It the government of the people that bans, for example, murder without running the risk sliding down the slippery slope to dictatorship. We also ban shouting fire in a crowded theater, false advertising and other verbal cons.

[Yvonne183]

I don't think I ever remember a having a Gov't that is of, by and for the people. Anyone who believes that is not looking at the Gov't as late. The Gov't is of big business and has always been this way since i was alive, even right now, Obama is hoeing himself on Wall street trying to get their dollars for his next campaign. And there is no law saying one can not yell fire in a crowded theater,, what if there really was a fire in that theater.

[hippifried]

And there is no law saying one can not yell fire in a crowded theater

Sure there is, if there's no fire. It's called creating a public danger. The method of creating a public danger is irrelevant, & can't be protected by a claim to freedom of speech. We don't ban hate speech, but we ban incitement to violence. The concept is the same. Personal freedoms can't be used as an excuse to endanger the public. There's no impunity. Speech is an action, & everybody's responsible for their own actions.

There's no right to be heard either, which a lot of people seem to think they have.

[BluegrassCat]

Sure there is, if there's no fire. It's called creating a public danger. The method of creating a public danger is irrelevant, & can't be protected by a claim to freedom of speech. We don't ban hate speech, but we ban incitement to violence. The concept is the same. Personal freedoms can't be used as an excuse to endanger the public. There's no impunity. Speech is an action, & everybody's responsible for their own actions.

There's no right to be heard either, which a lot of people seem to think they have.

Finally! Someone who has read and understands the constitution!

[Ben]

Really? I didn't know that. So every proposed law of physics is brought before the Parliament and then gets signed into law by the Prime Minister? When you exaggerate, it's difficult to know the precise bounds where truth ends and falsehood begins. It was Ann, not the Canadian government, who decided to cancel her Ottawa speech in March of 2010. She surmised that spreading her propaganda wasn't worth the risk of the response it might provoke.

Case in point. Up in ol' Canada. Jaggi Singh spent a year in prison for, well, speaking -- what?!?!?!?!?

Jaggi Singh set free
"My only regret is that we didn’t succeed in tearing down that fence.”
By Ben Spurr


Activist Jaggi Singh (http://www.nowtoronto.com/guides/g20/2010/story.cfm?content=178140) exited the courthouse at Old City Hall this morning to the sound of cheers from his supporters, having just been given a sentence of no jail time for calling for the G20 security fence to be torn down.
“Thank you to everybody for your support,” he said. “I went into this hearing today not feeling isolated, not feeling isolated personally, and not feeling isolated politically. My only regret is that we didn’t succeed in tearing down that fence.”
Back in April (http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/news/story.cfm?content=180457) Singh, a Montreal-based activist and member of the group No One Is Illegal (http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com/), pleaded guilty to counseling to commit mischief of over $5,000, a charge stemming from a speech he gave in front of the security fence on June 24, 2010.
At that time, he told a group of reporters “I think the fence deserves to be taken down, and I hope people do organize to do so.” Prosecutors argued that he was aware attempting to tear down the fence would have resulted in violence, and so the speech was a criminal act.

[NYBURBS]

Sure there is, if there's no fire. It's called creating a public danger. The method of creating a public danger is irrelevant, & can't be protected by a claim to freedom of speech. We don't ban hate speech, but we ban incitement to violence. The concept is the same. Personal freedoms can't be used as an excuse to endanger the public. There's no impunity. Speech is an action, & everybody's responsible for their own actions.

There's no right to be heard either, which a lot of people seem to think they have.

No, the concept is not the same. Incitement to violence requires a imminent threat, and is not some general license to censor anything the sovereign deems "hateful." Even this has been problematic, such as prosecuting someone for "fighting words" when they labeled the US government "fascist," but it's still a much greater level of protection than what is granted in parts of Europe.

There is a fundamental difference between saying that someone or something is wrong/evil/immoral and urging that people resort to immediate violence or other conduct that would result in physical injury. Some European laws restrict even the former, while for the most part US law only covers the latter.

[hippifried]

You're burbling again, Burbs. You skipped right over the first part of the sentence leading up to the one you emboldened. Let me repeat, just in case you actually missed it. "We don't ban hate speech..." We don't prosecute "fighting words" either. If you're stupid enough to use them, the guy who punches you in the eye gets to walk. Calling the government names doesn't fall into that category. "Fighting words" are set aside from other incitement because you're inviting violence against yourself. There's no specific law against being stupid, but that's why most convicts are where they are. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, Is a malicious act & an imminent threat. How's it different from other malicious speech that creates imminent threat? (Well... Other than the heinousness getting kicked up if the hatred is specific.)

I think the big problem that Europe has is that they still look at rights as a grant frpm the state.

[NYBURBS]

You're burbling again, Burbs. You skipped right over the first part of the sentence leading up to the one you emboldened. Let me repeat, just in case you actually missed it. "We don't ban hate speech..." We don't prosecute "fighting words" either. If you're stupid enough to use them, the guy who punches you in the eye gets to walk. Calling the government names doesn't fall into that category. "Fighting words" are set aside from other incitement because you're inviting violence against yourself. There's no specific law against being stupid, but that's why most convicts are where they are. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, Is a malicious act & an imminent threat. How's it different from other malicious speech that creates imminent threat? (Well... Other than the heinousness getting kicked up if the hatred is specific.)

I think the big problem that Europe has is that they still look at rights as a grant frpm the state.

I was taking issue with your statement that the concept is the same, and it's not. As for fighting words, yes we do still prosecute it, it's just that it tends to be listed as a minor offense in most states (and it is scrutinized much more closely now). In New York it's generally prosecuted under disorderly conduct, which is a petty offense.

I do agree with your last statement though. Its easier for a lot of European States to enact laws like that due to their notion of parliamentary sovereignty (aka supremacy).

[trish]

I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer, though I seem to recall that you (NYBURBS) are. I was wondering about the following. Suppose Mrs. X verbally contracts Mr. Y to murder her husband and pay him the after the deed is done with no money up front. Suppose Mr. Y is stupid enough to accept the deal. I assume that if Mr. Y carries out the deed, both parties can be prosecuted for first degree murder. Even if Mr. Y botches the job and Mr. X survives, I assume both parties can be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder. The weapon, the ammunition, the money withdrawn from the bank by Mrs. X and found in an envelop in her dresser are evidence that the conversation between Mrs. X and Mr. Y was serious, constituted conspiracy and wasn't just a discussion about some fantasy that Mrs. X had. The conspiracy is the verbal contract and the contract consists of speech. If I'm right about all the above, then the moral to be drawn is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecuting Mrs. X, even though all she did was speak. The larger moral is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecution when the judge or the grand jury surmises that the speech in question elicited a crime, or (as in the case of shouting fire) recklessly endangers one or more persons. Language is imprecise and nothing in the Constitution is black and white. As always is the case, judges and juries determine its interpretation within the confines of precedent and discernible meaning.

[hippifried]

The concept is exactly the same. The type of danger that the malicious speech creates is irrelevant to the general concept, just as the target is. Whether there's directed hatred involved is just about the degree of heinousness. That elevates the status of the crime from prank to whatever degree of high misdemeanor or felony, but the main point still stands. Free speech cannot be used as an excuse for putting others in danger. Not ever.

I don't think you understand what "fighting words" are. They're what pisses you off or scares you enough to take violent action toward the speaker. They're not illegal. They're just stupid, & negate any claim you think you might have for redress if you're the speaker who gets bitch slapped. Incitement of violence toward others falls into another category.

A direct conspiracy to murder or injure someone is an entirely different matter. There's no free speech issue involved in any way.

[NYBURBS]

The concept is exactly the same. The type of danger that the malicious speech creates is irrelevant to the general concept, just as the target is. Whether there's directed hatred involved is just about the degree of heinousness. That elevates the status of the crime from prank to whatever degree of high misdemeanor or felony, but the main point still stands. Free speech cannot be used as an excuse for putting others in danger. Not ever.

My point is that almost anything can be considered "hateful," but that it is wrong to criminally prosecute someone for merely stating an opinion or an idea. If one can show some additional action, solicitation, or agreement to bring about a violation of another's personal rights (i.e., murder, assault, destruction of property, etc) then it has in fact transitioned from a mere opinion to that of a conspiracy or accomplice, and of course would be prosecutable. What started this thread was a case brought about because someone stated an opinion, not one in which someone solicited or conspired to harm someone.


I don't think you understand what "fighting words" are. They're what pisses you off or scares you enough to take violent action toward the speaker. They're not illegal. They're just stupid, & negate any claim you think you might have for redress if you're the speaker who gets bitch slapped. Incitement of violence toward others falls into another category.


I think I do know what they are, and I've tried explaining them to you. I'm going to give you two sources to check for yourself:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/315/568/case.html (The 'fighting words case'). Now I don't agree with it, but it is in fact still standing precedent; however, I don't think they would uphold the judgment in this particular case if it came across the court today.

The section of NY law that I referred to earlier (note the bolded part):

Section 240.20 (http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/nygray.htm) Disorderly conduct
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.

[NYBURBS]

I'm neither a lawyer nor a police officer, though I seem to recall that you (NYBURBS) are. I was wondering about the following. Suppose Mrs. X verbally contracts Mr. Y to murder her husband and pay him the after the deed is done with no money up front. Suppose Mr. Y is stupid enough to accept the deal. I assume that if Mr. Y carries out the deed, both parties can be prosecuted for first degree murder. Even if Mr. Y botches the job and Mr. X survives, I assume both parties can be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder. The weapon, the ammunition, the money withdrawn from the bank by Mrs. X and found in an envelop in her dresser are evidence that the conversation between Mrs. X and Mr. Y was serious, constituted conspiracy and wasn't just a discussion about some fantasy that Mrs. X had. The conspiracy is the verbal contract and the contract consists of speech. If I'm right about all the above, then the moral to be drawn is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecuting Mrs. X, even though all she did was speak. The larger moral is that the First Amendment is not an impediment to prosecution when the judge or the grand jury surmises that the speech in question elicited a crime, or (as in the case of shouting fire) recklessly endangers one or more persons. Language is imprecise and nothing in the Constitution is black and white. As always is the case, judges and juries determine its interpretation within the confines of precedent and discernible meaning.

Trish, I've never attempted to argue that soliciting or conspiring to commit a murder would be protected speech. A better example, and perhaps more fitting to the topic at hand, would be this:

I state that the world would be better off without Trish- This would be mere opinion, and while perhaps hurtful or even hateful, in itself it is nothing more that the statement of an opinion (and not one that I personally hold, just to be clear lol).

I state that the world would be better off without Trish, and then hand someone a gun and a map of where to find Trish- This goes beyond the scope of mere opinion, and clearly enters into the realm of soliciting a crime.

[robertlouis]

Trish, I've never attempted to argue that soliciting or conspiring to commit a murder would be protected speech. A better example, and perhaps more fitting to the topic at hand, would be this:

I state that the world would be better off without Trish- This would be mere opinion, and while perhaps hurtful or even hateful, in itself it is nothing more that the statement of an opinion (and not one that I personally hold, just to be clear lol).

I state that the world would be better off without Trish, and then hand someone a gun and a map of where to find Trish- This goes beyond the scope of mere opinion, and clearly enters into the realm of soliciting a crime.

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses? Was it a hate crime or simply expressing opinion?

[NYBURBS]

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses? Was it a hate crime or simply expressing opinion?

"I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled 'Satanic Verses'. . . as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, are hereby sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Moslems to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islamic sanctity. Whoever is killed doing this will be regarded as a martyr and will go directly to heaven."

I'd say that pretty clearly falls in the "solicitation" category lol. More accurately, it is state sanctioned retribution for what someone has deemed to be an offensive position or opinion. It's horribly wrong, and while the Dutch law and prosecutions are not nearly so barbaric, in concept they are also just as wrong.

[robertlouis]

"I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled 'Satanic Verses'. . . as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, are hereby sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Moslems to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islamic sanctity. Whoever is killed doing this will be regarded as a martyr and will go directly to heaven."

I'd say that pretty clearly falls in the "solicitation" category lol. More accurately, it is state sanctioned retribution for what someone has deemed to be an offensive position or opinion. It's horribly wrong, and while the Dutch law and prosecutions are not nearly so barbaric, in concept they are also just as wrong.

Thanks and appreciated.

What about cross-hairs on the maps of your political opponents' hometowns and the use of gun-based metaphors in overheated rhetoric?

Thrilled and relieved to see Gabby Giffords looking so well and on the road to recovery this week.

[NYBURBS]

Thanks and appreciated.

What about cross-hairs on the maps of your political opponents' hometowns and the use of gun-based metaphors in overheated rhetoric?

Thrilled and relieved to see Gabby Giffords looking so well and on the road to recovery this week.

Yea, I think that whole debate was over-hyped and misplaced. I'm no fan of Palin, but both sides routinely used graphics like that. It is perhaps ill-considered, but I'm pretty sure it was more a metaphor for political battles than anything else.

It is good that she is recovering, and I wish her all the best.

[trish]

Yea, I think that whole debate was over-hyped and misplaced. I'm no fan of Palin, but both sides routinely used graphics like that. It is perhaps ill-considered, but I'm pretty sure it was more a metaphor for political battles than anything else.

It is good that she is recovering, and I wish her all the best.I largely agree on the specifics here. However, there are murkier cases. Websites, for example, which publish the home addresses of abortion providers, call them murderers, claim that the law won't do anything about it and hint at Second Amendment solutions. So far, when doctors are murdered, these sites have successfully hid behind the First Amendment. My guess, however, is that this situation will change if the shooter ever directly attributes his action to such a site. Anyway, it is my personal opinion that those cases should mark the boundary of and be excluded from First Amendment protections.

[hippifried]

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses? Was it a hate crime or simply expressing opinion?
Neither. It was a reaction to "fighting words". :ignore: :)

[Stavros]

I'm curious to know, in this specific context, how you would view Ayatollah Khomeini's wordlwide fatwa on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses?

In the strict sense of the word, Ayatollah Khomeini did not deliver a fatwa but merely his personal reaction to a news report about The Satanic Verses -the two are not the same. Muslims who want advice, usually on a personal matter to do with their marriage or which may arise if they are living in a non-Musim country, go to their Imam and his opinion is a fatwa -for Khomeini to sentence to Rushdie to death, think simply of a man who knows he has power encouraging others to commit murder.