Free Speech or Illegal Speech?

[mike777]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wo...0,1693979.story

 

 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Quran a "fascist book," a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.

 

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made headlines around the world in March 2008 with his film "Fitna," which juxtaposed Quranic verses against a background of violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals.

 

In 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Quran "the same way we ban 'Mein Kampf.'" He said both Adolf Hitler's work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values.

 

The Amsterdam Appeals Court called Wilders' statements in his film, newspaper articles and media interviews "one-sided generalizations ... which can amount to inciting hatred."

[helene_t]

The Dutch government claims the author's right to the Dutch translation of "Mein Kampf" and uses this to prevent others from distributing it. This is a special case. I don't think anyone other than a few Wilders followers would suggest trying to obtain the author's rights of all the thousands (my guess) of books that are much worse than "Mein Kampf". FWIW I think the Dutch goverment should sell those "Mein Kampf" rights on eBay so the book can come in circulation again, not that I miss the book that badly but just as a matter of principles.

 

That said, if we were to prosecute all politicians who make stupid and/or politically incorrect proposals, it would be the end of democracy. Maybe some objective criteria for "inciting hatred" should be defined, but I don't think an unbiased court could make Wilders shut up while at the same time allowing the Quran, the Bible, the Communist Manifest etc. to be distributed.

[luke warm]

maybe the court's ruling will forestall a fatwah

[mikeh]

This kind of thing can be troubling to many, especially in the US, where individual freedom of expression is accorded more priority than it is in many other countries.

 

it is similar to the attitude towards handguns.. in virtually all industrialized or post-industrial countries, the idea that individuals can carry handguns around is repugnant to most.. but not in the US, where the 'rights' of the individual in these areas outweigh the rights of society.

 

There is no 'right' or 'wrong'.. there are only value judgements. Canada has anti-hate laws as well.. and they have been used with, I think, to good effect. Of course, as with any law, there may be cases in which overly-zealous prosecutors seem to misapply the law.. I am not saying that happened in the Dutch case.. what little I know of the underlying facts suggests that prosecution may well be appropriate in that instance.

 

Personally, I am comfortable in a society that uses state sanction to reduce the public expression of bigotry and hatred. I value the rights of those people likely to be harmed by such expression higher than the rights of bigots and hate-mongers to publish their ideas. I also think that it is important, for the purposes of encouraging the development of a social consensus, that the state be permitted to show, in a powerful way, disapproval of certain anti-social behaviours.

 

Yes, that way lies the possibility of totalitarianism... but we kid ourselves if we assert that the US approach is fundamentally different. The US uses state sanctions in an attempt to impose values... it imposes different values.... that is the difference.

 

It is important to realize that every state does this..in one sense that is the primary function of a state. The US is no different, in this regard... the main difference between the US and other countries is that in the US, certain behaviours are treated more permissively than elsewhere while others are treated more harshly.

 

Smoke crack cocaine in the US and risk, in some jurisdictions, decades in prison. Urge your followers to hate minority groups, and you may land your own television show. Steal a pack of cigarettes, having two previous convictions, and face life in prison.. shoot and kill a stranger who knocked on your door, seeking directions, and suffer no consequences.

 

Who is right? Well, it seems that the majority of US citizens are happy with their country's priorities.. while in Western Europe or Canada, most take a different view.

[Winstonm]

I am not a fan of so-called "hate crimes" or having different penalties because of a "hate" motive - that places the state in position of creating moral distinctions. If this governmental action is based solely on the movie or newpaper content, then it is basically thought policing and closely resembles the very crime it proposes to treat. No one is forced to watch this movie or read the articles. The Amsterdam Appeals Court in my view issued a valid writing critique but not a well-thought-out legal opinion.

 

Does anyone else find it ironic that the leader of something called the "Freedom Party" called for a book ban?

 

I guess it's hard to get the villagers to riot without a Frankenstein's monster to burn.

[PassedOut]

Regarding the topic of inflamatory words, the Vatican just made a controversial decision: Holocaust Denier Eligible for Heaven Once Again

 

The decision provided fresh fuel for critics who charge that Benedict’s four-year-old papacy has proven increasingly hostile to moderates and to the sweeping reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s that sought to create a more modern and open church.

 

Most contentious was the inclusion of Richard Williamson, a British-born cleric who in an interview last week said he did not believe that Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers. He has also given interviews saying that the United States government staged the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan.

I leave it to believers to judge whether the Pope is using wisely his earthly power to determine who can get into heaven after death.

[Trinidad]

Some extra information to put things in perspective.

 

1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law. This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government.

 

2) Members of Parlement cannot be prosecuted for anything they say in a debate in parlement while it is in session. (An MP once was convicted for slander for calling another MP a liar, right after the chairman had adjourned the session. He was fined the equivalent of about $15, in the 1950's, I think.)

 

3) Loads of people (think thousands) have filed numerous police reports about Mr. Wilders inciting hatred outside parlement.

 

4) The DA refused to prosecute, arguing that he couldn't make a case against Mr. Wilders.

 

5) Citizens went to court over this DA's decision.

 

6) The court basically decided that the DA's argument was nonsense, that there was a good legal basis for prosecution and that the DA's office should do its job.

 

7) Mr. Wilders has not been convicted of any crime. The court has only overruled the DA's refusal to prosecute and forced the DA to bring this case in front of a judge.

 

8) Both the people and Mr Wilders can appeal many times. The highest court of appeal would be the European Human rights court (or something similar). This European court has upheld legal rulings on hatred on occasions where the hate crime was not as clear as the hate crimes that Mr. Wilders is committing.

 

To put the case even more in perspective, another (left wing) member of parlement may be prosecuted for being part of a demonstration against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. A high profile criminal lawyer (and over 100 others) have filed police reports against this MP because other protesters were yelling antisemitic phrases and this MP didn't walk away. This MP claimed he didn't even hear these phrases. The high profile lawyer argues that it doesn't matter. The fact that he could expect that these phrases would be yelled during the demonstration is more than enough evidence that he supports these antisemitic phrases.

 

As an aside, this Freedom Party is causing a lot of trouble in general. Another MP was recently thrown out of a parlementary delegation to The Netherlands Antilles because he just wouldn't stop insulting the officials from The Netherlands Antilles. Of course, it is completely impossible to do business if one person in the meeting is continuously calling the others corrupt liars. Whether the representatives from The Netherlands Antilles actually were corrupt liars is not relevant. The fact that it was made impossible to do any business is. Or to put it differently: Even if this MP was right (about the NA reps), he was wrong (in making it impossible to do business).

 

My personal view is that these people shouldn't be prosecuted. They should just not be elected. But unfortunately, they did get elected. And it looks like they will be reelected too. ;)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

One additional fact:

 

Two weeks ago, Mr. Wilders was asking questions in parlement why the protesters against the Israeli attacks on Gaza were not arrested for inciting hatred...

 

Mr. Wilders is perfectly aware that inciting hatred is a crime in The Netherlands. He is not aware that in order to incite anything you need to have influence over people.

 

I (strongly) agree with Mr. Wilders that the phrases that were used by some protesters are not acceptable. But at the same time, it is blatantly obvious that individual protesters cannot incite anything since they do not get enough attention, whereas Mr. Wilders can (and does) incite hatred pretty much whenever he wants to. He would have the power to incite peace, love, understanding, or even tolerance but somehow that doesn't fit his political agenda. ;)

 

Rik

[luke warm]

Some extra information to put things in perspective.

 

1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law.

what's the point of this law? is it to make society less 'hateful'? also, is it presumed that a majority cannot be hated, thus inciting hatred against them is not illegal?

[Trinidad]

Some extra information to put things in perspective.

 

1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law.

what's the point of this law? is it to make society less 'hateful'? also, is it presumed that a majority cannot be hated, thus inciting hatred against them is not illegal?

I thought that I already explained the point of this law: "This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government."

 

I will put it a little clearer: In The Netherlands, we have seen what can happen if influential people incite hatred in the population. It happened from 1933-1945 in Germany and had major consequences for Dutch society from 1940-1945, to put it very mildly.

 

Because of the hatred, incitited by democratically elected officials in Germany, only a small part of the European Jewish population survived the holocaust. We don't want something like that to happen again.

 

If, in the case of Mr. Wilders, one replaces "Muslims" by "Jews" and "Quran" by "Torah", everything sounds very much like it did in 1933. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of all Dutch to stop him from reaching 1939.

 

I would prefer if the voters would be smarter and Mr. Wilders just wouldn't get the votes. But since the voters are what they are, we are slowly getting towards a point where it is more important to prevent a new holocaust than to uphold democracy, no matter what it costs.

 

To get to your last point. (Presumably a majority cannot be hated...) Of course, a majority can be hated. But in a democracy, a majority is politically able to protect itself against the minority. (They can pass legislation to protect themselves.) A minority cannot protect itself in that way (as we saw under Hitler).

 

Rik

[PassedOut]

Some extra information to put things in perspective.

 

1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law.

what's the point of this law? is it to make society less 'hateful'? also, is it presumed that a majority cannot be hated, thus inciting hatred against them is not illegal?

I thought that I already explained the point of this law: "This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government."

 

I will put it a little clearer: In The Netherlands, we have seen what can happen if influential people incite hatred in the population. It happened from 1933-1945 in Germany and had major consequences for Dutch society from 1940-1945, to put it very mildly.

 

Because of the hatred, incitited by democratically elected officials in Germany, only a small part of the European Jewish population survived the holocaust. We don't want something like that to happen again.

 

If, in the case of Mr. Wilders, one replaces "Muslims" by "Jews" and "Quran" by "Torah", everything sounds very much like it did in 1933. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of all Dutch to stop him from reaching 1939.

 

I would prefer if the voters would be smarter and Mr. Wilders just wouldn't get the votes. But since the voters are what they are, we are slowly getting towards a point where it is more important to prevent a new holocaust than to uphold democracy, no matter what it costs.

 

To get to your last point. (Presumably a majority cannot be hated...) Of course, a majority can be hated. But in a democracy, a majority is politically able to protect itself against the minority. (They can pass legislation to protect themselves.) A minority cannot protect itself in that way (as we saw under Hitler).

 

Rik

More recently, the elected government of the US attacked and occupied Iraq, whose citizens had no vote in the US election.

 

To whip up support for the attack, President Bush (who had campaigned on the promise of a "humbler" foreign policy) and his people cranked up their propaganda machine with false claims that Iraq threatened the US with "weapons of mass destruction." Folks who challenged that propaganda were villified and worse.

[Winstonm]

I will put it a little clearer: In The Netherlands, we have seen what can happen if influential people incite hatred in the population. It happened from 1933-1945 in Germany and had major consequences for Dutch society from 1940-1945, to put it very mildly.

 

Was the root cause due to influential people inciting hatred in the entire population - or was the problem created by a small group of like-minded, hateful individuals gaining positions of power? After all, when a small group holds the power to send the secret police around to someone's door, it dramatically diminishes opposition to their deeds.

[kenberg]

Maybe we could pass a law here, call it perhaps the Rush Limbaugh law, that would make being a loud mouthed idiot a crime.

 

These things have always been a problem. In theory we all (I assume) support the free expression of ideas. Most countries, including the US, find ways to make people hold their tongues a bit in some circumstances.

 

I would not favor adopting the Dutch law here. I also have some considerable faith in free speech as the best way to deal with hatred. Shutting people up is not a good way to get them to rethink their positions. But I am not up for throwing any large stones here.

[helene_t]

My problem with this trial is that it is out of proportion with what is generally condoned in the Netherlands and elsewhere.

 

If you read religious propaganda material and see what those guys say about homosexuals, or about followers of competing religions, calling the Quran a fascist book is really quite innocent.

[hotShot]

Does the US laws on free speech include:

 

- to abet someone to commit a murder

- to abet someone to intentionally hurt/injure someone

- to abet someone to to steal or destroy someones property

- to abet someone to discriminate someone because of his race, religion or ....

 

Because this kind of speech is illegal in most European counties.

European constitutions value the protection of a persons dignity and health over the free speech of others.

[Winstonm]

Does the US laws on free speech include:

 

- to abet someone to commit a murder

- to abet someone to intentionally hurt/injure someone

- to abet someone to to steal or destroy someones property

- to abet someone to discriminate someone because of his race, religion or ....

 

Because this kind of speech is illegal in most European counties.

European constitutions value the protection of a persons dignity and health over the free speech of others.

I have no personal experience, but from what has been written thus far it appears to me some European countries extrapolate in law creation - meaning that in the U.S. one cannot actively encourage the commiting of a crime, but voicing an opinion is not considered encouraging a crime. In Europe it appears to me that it could be extrapolated that the voicing of the opinion could cause someone else to be encouraged to commit a crime.

 

To me, that type of thinking is actually more dangerous - it grants the ruling parties the authority to suppress dissent by labeling it "hate".

[PassedOut]

Maybe we could pass a law here, call it perhaps the Rush Limbaugh law, that would make being a loud mouthed idiot a crime.

Of course, someone could write a book called "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and later be elected to the US Senate. :)

[kenberg]

I live a dull life and like Winston cannot speak from direct experience about US laws.

Here are a few instances.

 

 

A movie of a few years back, The Accused, was based on an actual incident. A woman was gang raped in a bar as patrons cheered. The enthusiastic audience was successfully prosecuted. So that's one extreme.

 

 

For Christmas last year, or maybe New Years, a guy who was hoping to become the chair of the National Republican Committee sent friends a CD with a rendition of Barack the Magic Negro, done to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. No one suggested prosecution, although it did not do his bid for the chairmanship any good.

 

What's in between? I see by the morning papers that Al Qaeda is trying to bait Obama by calling him a house nigger. Doing so in the US would not be prosecutable, or at least I don't think so, but it could well cost you your job on the grounds that it creates a hostile work environment.

 

 

If I say something offensive about some ethnic group I cannot be prosecuted. If I subsequently end up in a tense situation and take a punch at a member of that group, my words may come back to haunt me. This situation probably is pretty effective at getting people to keep their opinions to themselves or express them only with trusted friends.

 

 

Obviously some statements can create an atmosphere where a physical attack is more likely to occur. I don't think people have free rein here to say whatever they want but the limits are pretty broad. Speech that states a low opinion of someone is pretty much left unregulated, subject only to civil penalties for making false assertions about matters of fact.

 

 

That's roughly what I understand to be US law. Of course I love everyone so I never have any trouble.

 

 

I have no real desire to debate whether this is better or worse than the European approach, even if there is a European approach rather than a French approach, a Dutch approach, and so on. A few years back some American officials, I think including GWB, had some caustic things to say about the French edict prohibiting Muslim headscarves in school. A French official pointed out the France has never said a word about the American requirement that schoolchildren say that this is one nation under God. I agree with the implications of this observation.

 

 

I am reasonably content with our approach although I don't really think much of hate crime laws.

[hotShot]

I have no personal experience, but from what has been written thus far it appears to me some European countries extrapolate in law creation - meaning that in the U.S. one cannot actively encourage the commiting of a crime, but voicing an opinion is not considered encouraging a crime. In Europe it appears to me that it could be extrapolated that the voicing of the opinion could cause someone else to be encouraged to commit a crime.

 

To me, that type of thinking is actually more dangerous - it grants the ruling parties the authority to suppress dissent by labeling it "hate".

Would you consider sentences like the following voicing an opinion, or do they actively encourage committing a crime?

 

I think we should beat up all plaid skinned beings!

Those plaid skins cannot have earned their property in a legal way, let's take it away from them.

[mike777]

"3) Loads of people (think thousands) have filed numerous police reports about Mr. Wilders inciting hatred outside parlement."

 

I found this comment very interesting. Thousands file police reports over stuff like this.

 

In the USA people do not file police reports even if they see someone shot and killed let alone over speech issues.

[Winstonm]

I think we should beat up all plaid skinned beings!

 

"I think" means voicing an opinion.

 

 

Those plaid skins cannot have earned their property in a legal way, let's take it away from them.

 

There is more difficult, but it seems to me the qualifying phrase is a subjective statement (Those plaid skins cannot have earned their property in a legal way) and thus the entire statement falls to me under opinion.

 

Also note that how and where statements are made is also relevant IMO. If I write an article for the newspaper that states a certain group is subhuman that is much different than standing beside someone and yelling in his ear an ecouragement to do violence.

 

This discussion can get rather academic and I am not saying what Europe does is necessarily wrong but trying to point out how very different it is in concept to the ideas in the U.S. It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to do what is right.

[qwery_hi]

The right to free speech is under attack in the US too, as cases like this -

http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000372.shtml show.

 

OTOH, in some European countries, you can be jailed for denying that the holocaust occurred.

 

No sex or No violence - take your pick :)

[hotShot]

It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to so what is right.

I think the difference is which individual is protected, the agitator or his victims.

The laws we discuss here deal with attacks against ethnic or religious minority groups.

My impression is that the agitators right of free speech has a higher value in the US, than his victims right not to be subject of insults, slur or threats of violence.

[mike777]

It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to so what is right.

I think the difference is which individual is protected, the agitator or his victims.

The laws we discuss here deal with attacks against ethnic or religious minority groups.

My impression is that the agitators right of free speech has a higher value in the US, than his victims right not to be subject of insults, slur or threats of violence.

I think that is a fair observation.

 

You might want to even add that if you are a public person or in this case a public religion or book there is almost no legal recourse.

[Winstonm]

It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to so what is right.

I think the difference is which individual is protected, the agitator or his victims.

The laws we discuss here deal with attacks against ethnic or religious minority groups.

My impression is that the agitators right of free speech has a higher value in the US, than his victims right not to be subject of insults, slur or threats of violence.

That is certainly one way of viewing it. I actually believe the differences in the U.S. comes from a basic mistrust of government that was inherent in the Founding Fathers and was built into the U.S. Constitution.

 

Keep in mind that if you grant your government the power to silence critics, there is no way to stop them if you become their critic.

 

This somewhat reminds me of something I read from a German who witnessed the Nazis in action. "First they came for the unionists, but I wasn't a unionist so I did not complain." (Or something along those lines.)

 

I certainly am with you that it appears there is a basic difference in how these two concepts are viewed - and as long as both work that is what matters.