Freedom of Speech -- European Style

[Ian_Lee]

Roddy:

Everything has a beginning. Before Hilter invaded all Europe, he first locked up the Communists, Socialists, Catholics and then the Democrats.

When Hilter first rounded up the Communists, a lot of people in Europe also applauded because they felt disgusted by the Communists.

[trevelyan]

Ian -- you can't invoke the absolute nature of freedom of speech, and simultaneously concede that there are legitimate restrictions to it.

Of course there is room to discuss what constitutes reasonable restrictions on human liberty. I personally don't want to get into a discussion of it here because I think Irving is scum and that what he is doing constitutes hate speech against those who died in the Holocaust. And by trivializing that tragedy and demeaning the suffering of the Jewish people, I think he is consciously undermining a broader set of liberal principles and trivializing other historical acts of genocide as well, whether in Rwanda, Albania, China or wherever.

If you seriously believe that his imprisonment involves a miscarriage of justice and want to discuss it, go ahead and make your case. But unless you want to follow Voltaire in defending the right to speech regardless of consequence or intent, simply pointing out that he is in jail for speaking his mind is not going to get you much traction with people who do not consider these issues black and white, and believe that both speech and actions are properly judged in their context.

[roddy]

Well Ian, yes, everything does have a beginning. Shepherd's pie and potato jam, for example, both come from potatoes. However, I can tell the difference between them. When the potatoes start looking like they are turning into potato jam I will protest. However, Austria is currently making shepherd's pie.

[Ian_Lee]

Trevelyan:

Ms Lipstadt, the US historian that you mentioned who won a libel lawsuit against Irving in 2000 -- holds the same opinion as I do -- Irving should not be put behind bar.

Read:

http://www.ww4report.com/node/1635

Excerpts:

_____________________________

Laws that ban ideas, no matter how vile the ideas, are distasteful to academics, and even those academics who ended Mr. Irving's mainstream career have come out to defend him today.

"If you had told me, a few months ago, that I would be demanding David Irving's release one day, I would have called you insane," Ms. Lipstadt told the German magazine Der Spiegel this week.

But she is defending him. "I'm against censorship -- no one stands to benefit from the throwing of this guy into prison."

The trial occurs at a moment when Europe is concerned with fundamental questions of freedom of speech. The attack by fundamentalist Muslims on Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has raised a question that has long dogged the German and Austrian anti-Nazi laws: If you prohibit certain topics of speech, can you really say you have a free society?

_____________________________________

[Ian_Lee]

Roddy:

Even though I have not tasted either Shepherd's pie or potato jam, I can tell from their names that they both taste awful to me:roll:

[Ian_Lee]

And I also strongly disagree with the suggestion about equating doubting about the Holocaust as committing a Hate Crime.

If you say Jews are/were @#$!%^#*&^ and deserved that fate, definitely that is hate crime.

If you incite somebody to attack the Jews, definitely that is also hate crime.

But when someone doubts validity of a historical incident that happened 44 years ago, how can that be called hate crime?

Many Japanese historians distorted its wartime history. I would say they are bigots or Japan apologists or ultranationalists. But I would not say that they have committed a hate crime.

[yingguoguy]

There is a big debate at the moment in Europe about freedom of speech. No society as 'pure' free speech, it need libel laws and incitement to hatred laws. There's alway a line to be draw. There has been a big debate in Britain recently about whether religious hatred is the same as racial hatred as you can choose your religion, but you can't choose your race.

I tend to think that Irving shoudn't haven't been locked up but he should have been ignored and marginalized, but I also think that wanting to lock him up is a perfectly reasonable point of view and constitutes no serious danger to free speech. Personally I would boycott any university that employed him, and his papers should not be reviewed by other acedemics, except, as Liptstadts did, when looking at the history of holocaust denial. Similarly I think the Danish newspapers had the right to publish the cartoons, but that it was grossly insensitive, served little purpose and I would stongly urge that no-one buys that paper and that other news agencies don't republish them.

On the other hand I think that societies like Germany and Austria which have faced up to their past, and as part of that passed holocaust denial laws, are far heathlier and freer than societies like Japan where holding such views, even as a politician, goes unpunished and seems acceptable. Remember that people in Japan have been attacked and killed in the past by right-wing extremists for highlighting Japanese war-crimes.

[roddy]

I think saying that he should be ignored and marginalized is entirely reasonable, but it would be a hard sentence to enforce. Plus there are people at the margins waiting to welcome him with open arms. It's also worth remembering that this is presumably a relatively big case, with a high-profile defendant and a history going back over a decade, who treated the court with some contempt. I presume (can anyone confirm?) that the majority of similar cases are dealt with by fines and lesser sentences? If you are going to have holocaust denial on the statute books as a crime punishable by jail, then Irving had to go to jail.

Wholeheartedly agree with what you say about the Danish newspapers, but believe it applies to a much greater extent to those who subsequently republished the images. You may have the right to do this. But what need?

[kudra]

Since this thread wasn't lively enough, thought I'd add this...

From

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Holocaust_denial

The continuing, persistent efforts by Holocaust deniers to portray such a human disaster as a mere fiction in the face of overwhelming evidence has led scholars and authorities to question their motives. "Why," it has been asked, "do people deny the Holocaust?" On July 24, 1996, a missive by Harold Covington (the leader of the National Socialist White People's Party, formerly the American Nazi Party) was sent via email to a number of neo-Nazi supporters (many of whom were Holocaust deniers). In this message, Covington explained Holocaust denial in a manner that has been used by its opponents and critics as a definitive answer to the question of why:

"Take away the Holocaust and what do you have left? Without their precious Holocaust, what are the Jews? Just a grubby little bunch of international bandits and assassins and squatters who have perpetrated the most massive, cynical fraud in human history...I recall seeing a television program on revisionism a few years ago which closed with Deborah Lipstadt making some statement to the effect that: the real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again. I normally don't agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, 'Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!'" -- "On Revisionism" by Harold Covington (writing under the pseudonym Winston Smith), NSNet Bulletin #5, July 24, 1996

My point, not especially deep, is that this indicates that laws outlawing Holocaust denial are consistent with laws outlawing National Socialism.

[Ian_Lee]

The Lower House of French Parliament just passed a law last week in indicting anyone who dares deny that there had been genocide committed on the Armenians by the Turks during 1918-20.

But why are the French related to the Armenians and the Turks?

Maybe the French should also pass a law in banning anyone who denies Nanking Massacre from visiting their country.

[md1101]

ian i think people like you are needed just to keep these authorities in check. the passing of these laws does make you question where do they draw the line on such cases? but thankfully at the moment, at least, there is large debate before such laws are passed and i certainly dont disagree with the holocaust law. the reason there is debate is because not everything can be ruled in black and white.

yet i too get a little worried at what the government will define as 'inciting hatred' or 'harmful to others'. afterall beijing coins terms like 'disrupting social harmony' for its reasons in jailing anyone who mentions anything against gov. policy. this is a worrying issue i must agree. the passing of this law is a step in taking away free speech. but its a step most people wont disagree with. some like yourself i presume argue against the possible momentum this step creates. i say people like you are necessary because it should help prevent any momentum developing. each one of these laws banning certain speech should certainly be viewed with utmost scrutiny.

[wushijiao]

The Economist has an convincing editorial about how these new laws against certain types of speech are a natural extension of the well-intentioned Holocaust-denial laws:

"Restrictions on free speech are always undesirable. Holocaust-denial laws may have been justified in Germany and Austria because they helped to stop something even worse: a revival of Nazism. Yet that is surely no longer a risk in either country. And it certainly does not justify the extension of such laws to other countries where there is no real threat of Nazism, such as France and Belgium; or the adoption of “hate speech” legislation that has nothing to do with Nazism; or the interpretation of laws against incitement to violence in a way that constrains speech which merely causes offence.

The most vivid example of the creeping extension of Holocaust-denial laws has come in the French National Assembly, which last week voted for a bill to make denial of the genocide of Armenians in Turkey during the first world war a criminal offence. The political context for this was not just vociferous lobbying by Armenians in France but also growing hostility among voters to the idea of Turkish membership of the European Union. To appeal to such voters, the assembly proved ready to place restrictions on one of the most fundamental of all freedoms, that of speech (though in fact the bill is unlikely to become law).

This is a perfectly logical extension of a slew of laws imposing free-speech restrictions to suppress racial, ethnic and religious hatred.

As always happens, an industry grows up around any such laws (and lawsuits), dedicated to policing, sustaining and extending the legal framework. The industry consists of government bodies, such as Britain's Commission for Racial Equality, which investigate complaints; official agencies, such as France's Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel, which monitor the media for racist remarks; and any number of informal organisations that represent minorities and win their spurs by doing battle with the political establishment."

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8051404

[bhchao]

Europe is not the only continent that limits these freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion) regarding Holocaust denial.

There are restrictions on freedom of the press in the US. For example the press is forbidden to take pictures of coffins returning to the US from Iraq. The American media is often coerced by the courts to reveal its sources on sensitive subjects regarding Bush Administration policies.

[wushijiao]

Here is an NPR listening, a debate about this issue. Take a listen and see which side you agree with:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6249980

[bhchao]

I believe that controlling what one can say should solely lie with the individual, instead of external regulations. It is the individual's responsibility to know what to say and exercise self restraint to prevent the utterance of inappropriate remarks. Ostracism would be a more effective tool against that individual rather than judicial punishment.

But although I dislike censorship or jail time for inappropriate remarks, I would support the kind of "punishment" given to a man in Hong Kong during the 1990's who made an inappropriate remark about Cathay Pacific flight attendants.

The guy was a well known business executive who was a regular passenger at Cathay Pacific. He remarked in a derogatory manner that the airline's attendants are best in providing "sensual services" to its passengers. It was a nasty, insensitive remark (and uncalled for) that angered many of the airline's flight attendants.

As a consequence, Cathay Pacific banned him forever from riding the airline. I would support this kind of ostracism.