Posted: Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:58 Post subject: Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
This article does not address the issue of using hate speech laws to silence legitimate criticism. Are the only "minorities" protected the ones with lots of political power and social insecurity? Those who have labored in the multiracial movement know how American black spokesmen often screamed "racists" to silence criticism.
Quote:
June 12, 2008
NY Times
American Exception
Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
By ADAM LIPTAK
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.
Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.
Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.
“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.
“It’s free speech!” yelled another.
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.
The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.
“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”
“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”
Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.
Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.
By contrast, American courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.
Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps “basically a Puerto Rican program.” The First Amendment, Justice Eve M. Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase “the general level of prejudice.”
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of efforts to use the law to limit hate speech.
But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.
The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry mob to immediately assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article — or any publication — intended to stir up racial hatred surely does not.
Mr. Lewis wrote that there was “genuinely dangerous” speech that did not meet the imminence requirement.
“I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,” Mr. Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.”
Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., disagreed. “When times are tough,” he said, “there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom.”
“Free speech matters because it works,” Mr. Silverglate continued. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.
“The world didn’t suffer because too many people read ‘Mein Kampf,’ ” Mr. Silverglate said. “Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the United States would have been quite a good idea.”
Mr. Silverglate seemed to be echoing the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., whose 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States eventually formed the basis for modern First Amendment law.
“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Justice Holmes wrote.
“I think that we should be eternally vigilant,” he added, “against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”
The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.
But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.
In 1969, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel,” to “bury” blacks, though he did not call them that, and to consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to whites.
Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Mr. Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement.
In his opening statement in the Canadian magazine case, a lawyer representing the Muslim plaintiffs aggrieved by the Maclean’s article pleaded with a three-member panel of the tribunal to declare that the article subjected his clients to “hatred and ridicule” and to force the magazine to publish a response.
“You are the only thing between racist, hateful, contemptuous Islamophobic and irresponsible journalism, and law-abiding Canadian citizens,” the lawyer, Faisal Joseph, told the tribunal.
In response, the lawyer for Maclean’s, Roger D. McConchie, all but called the proceeding a sham.
“Innocent intent is not a defense,” Mr. McConchie said in a bitter criticism of the British Columbia law on hate speech. “Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.”
Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists, which have intervened in the case in support of the magazine, was measured in his criticism of the law.
“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”
Many foreign courts have respectfully considered the American approach — and then rejected it.
A 1990 decision from the Canadian Supreme Court, for instance, upheld the criminal conviction of James Keegstra for “unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Semitic statements.” Mr. Keegstra, a teacher, had told his students that Jews were “money loving,” “power hungry” and “treacherous.”
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Brian Dickson said there was an issue “crucial to the disposition of this appeal: the relationship between Canadian and American approaches to the constitutional protection of free expression, most notably in the realm of hate propaganda.”
Chief Justice Dickson said “there is much to be learned from First Amendment jurisprudence.” But he concluded that “the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression.”
The United States’ distinctive approach to free speech, legal scholars say, has many causes. It is partly rooted in an individualistic view of the world. Fear of allowing the government to decide what speech is acceptable plays a role. So does history.
“It would be really hard to criticize Israel, Austria, Germany and South Africa, given their histories,” for laws banning hate speech, Professor Schauer said in an interview.
In Canada, however, laws banning hate speech seem to stem from a desire to promote societal harmony. While the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint against Maclean’s, it still condemned the article.
“In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be,” the commission’s statement said. “By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West,’ this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others.”
A separate federal complaint against Maclean’s is pending.
Mr. Steyn, the author of the article, said the Canadian proceedings had illustrated some important distinctions. “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re about feelings.”
“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Mr. Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”
This will eventually make its way to the U.S. and it will be initiated by the people in the Democratic party.
It already has. I have a litany of articles detailing it if anyone is interested, that can be posted in Improving U.S. Society.
Please do. When I was writing this I was thinking of John Conyers plan a few years ago to promote a bill making defaming the Koran a hate crime or something. If it passed, it would make Koranic criticism illegal and punishable. Biblical criticism and lambasting Christians is legal (as it should be), but this bill would conceivably make books about Islam and the Koran similar to Steve Allen's (of "The Tonight Show" fame) books on the Bible and Christianity illegal to write, publish, and read.
It's not an accident that Conyers is one of the most left-leaning members of the Democratic Party.
This will eventually make its way to the U.S. and it will be initiated by the people in the Democratic party.
It already has. I have a litany of articles detailing it if anyone is interested, that can be posted in Improving U.S. Society.
Please do. When I was writing this I was thinking of John Conyers plan a few years ago to promote a bill making defaming the Koran a hate crime or something. If it passed, it would make Koranic criticism illegal and punishable. Biblical criticism and lambasting Christians is legal (as it should be), but this bill would conceivably make books about Islam and the Koran similar to Steve Allen's (of "The Tonight Show" fame) books on the Bible and Christianity illegal to write, publish, and read.
It's not an accident that Conyers is one of the most left-leaning members of the Democratic Party.
It's long seemed to me that people on the left view Christianity and Judaism as the only "real" (and oppressive) religions while other religions are merely expressions of Third World ethnicity. I've seen how white leftists will often ridicule other whites who identify as Christians or religious (as opposed to ethnic) Jews, while any criticism of Islam or other religions considered indigenous to the Third World is considered racist.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 00:58 Post subject:
As un-American as this may sound, I'm not too fond of "freedom of speech" myself. Two countries that I've been to that lack 100% freedom of speech was Greece and Turkey, though in Greece the only limitation was that you are not allowed to say anything negative about Greece or Greek culture and history.
Turkey has the same rule, and in addition, it is illegal to debate religion or evangelize in public - in other words, you're free from redneck strangers asking you if you're saved, people shouting religious stuff on the street corner (like you see in New Orleans), Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door, or people handing you Jack Prick, err, I mean, Jack Chick tracts... ah yes, if only we could have such laws here...
As un-American as this may sound, I'm not too fond of "freedom of speech" myself. Two countries that I've been to that lack 100% freedom of speech was Greece and Turkey, though in Greece the only limitation was that you are not allowed to say anything negative about Greece or Greek culture and history.
Turkey has the same rule, and in addition, it is illegal to debate religion or evangelize in public - in other words, you're free from redneck strangers asking you if you're saved, people shouting religious stuff on the street corner (like you see in New Orleans), Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door, or people handing you Jack Prick, err, I mean, Jack Chick tracts... ah yes, if only we could have such laws here...
Actually, they are doing you a favor by warning you of the perils to come......
Now, you are [apparently?] pro-silencing of 'religious propaganda', however whose to say it will only stop there? Remember, Hilter started with the book burnings before the Jew burnings......
MLK once said: "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere".
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 15:01 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
Now, you are [apparently?] pro-silencing of 'religious propaganda', however whose to say it will only stop there? Remember, Hilter started with the book burnings before the Jew burnings......
MLK once said: "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere".
Yeah, but you like to spread religious stuff, so I can see why it would bother you.
And by the way, it's been "stopped there" in Turkey since WWI.
Now, you are [apparently?] pro-silencing of 'religious propaganda', however whose to say it will only stop there? Remember, Hilter started with the book burnings before the Jew burnings......
MLK once said: "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere".
Yeah, but you like to spread religious stuff, so I can see why it would bother you.
It doesn't bother me. A Muslim/Hindu/Buddist/Jew etc. could pass out tracts, tell me x,y,z, and I would declare it 'free speech' and probably even accept their literature politely or maybe chat them up.
However, if such activity were banned, to be fair, you would also have to ban any direct solicitation by businesses, charities, NGO, law enforcenment, children/youth groups, etc that regularly approach people on the street/in public venues.
Girl scout cookies or $5 car wash anyone?
P.S. Not totally - it just Christians they persecute and prosecute for beaking the 'law'. Muslms get off. You see, selective people apply the LAW selectively.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 15:14 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
Actually, they are doing you a favor by warning you of the perils to come......
Maybe I should receive equal commendation for warning them that if they don't get away from me, I'll put my foot up their redneck fundamentalist @$$. They can take their fire & brimstone nonsense somewhere else. Do you see the amount of violence that such limitations on speech can prevent?
Man, I remember one time I was at the laundromat. Two JW women come up to me, trying to hand me a copy of the Watch Tower. I told them to "F@ck off." They started giving me this "deer in the headlights" look. I said to them, "You f@ckin' deaf? I said f@ck off." The great thing is, when you free yourself from the shackles of religion, you can do that. Man, it feels good!
Melani23 wrote:
However, if such activity were banned, to be fair, you would also have to ban any direct solicitation by businesses, charities, NGO, law enforcenment, children/youth groups, etc that regularly approach people on the street/in public venues.
No you wouldn't. Countries that ban religious discussion in public don't. Religion is an uncomfortable topic for most, and it can lead to people getting upset or even physically combat. Those other things you mentioned do not lead to that. Trust me, the Turks aren't complaining whatsoever about that limitation on speech.
Melani23 wrote:
P.S. Not totally - it just Christians they persecute and prosecute for beaking the 'law'. Muslms get off. You see, selective people apply the LAW selectively.
Have you been to Turkey? I have - many times. I can tell you that it applies to ALL religions. Quit with your assumptions.
While I appreciate the intention behind curbing freedom of speech, I actually think the U.S. approach is the right one. Say whatever you want but be prepared to pay the consequences if your statements are 1) untrue 2) socially unacceptable or 3) will directly incite violence. There should be no whining about political correctness or persecution if a person chooses to open his/her mouth and say something offensive (let's say on a radio show) and advertisers choose to pull their ads or listeners call for their removal from the airwaves. Just because members of a society do not wish to hear opinions in certain fora does not mean that free speech is inhibited. At the end of the day the first amendment protects my right to say pretty much anything I want to. It does not and should not enable me to say things whereever I want, whenever I want and to whomever I wish without consequences.
So sure, let the KKK march in their clown costumes, but nail them whenever they say something/write down something that is slanderous or libelous (which would singlehandedly employ every lawyer in the country for years and years).
I do not think that religious solicitation (which is all that a lot of proselytizing is) falls in the same category. If I have a sign on my building that says "no solicitation" I do not believe that Jehovah's witnesses should ring my doorbell or distribute materials (which happens A LOT in Germany). What do I care if they are passing out flyers on a sidewalk? After a couple minutes with me and hearing my take on religion I'm sure they will not WANT to talk to me anymore.
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Mon 16 Jun 2008 16:59 Post subject:
I guess what it all boils down to is which right you believe should outweight the other: the right for an idividual to be free from objectionable speech, or the right to give it. They both conflict - and also, it's possible to keep your mouth shut, but not your ears.
Grant me the right to smack someone for telling me that I'm going to hell if I (don't) do this or that, and I'd be perfectly with our current system.
I guess what it all boils down to is which right you believe should outweight the other: the right for an idividual to be free from objectionable speech, or the right to give it. They both conflict - and also, it's possible to keep your mouth shut, but not your ears.
Grant me the right to smack someone for telling me that I'm going to hell if I (don't) do this or that, and I'd be perfectly with our current system.
Are you advocating violence for mere words? Why should someone passing out tracts or any papers (you have a choice to accept or not) elicit violence if they are not abusive to you? Your JW response was irrational as they never used profanity to you. A simple 'no, go away' or 'leave me alone' would have sufficed.... Hmmmmm
Why should it matter to you what any 'religious' people say about the afterlife if YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEM? Why should their opinion bother you if you don't believe in their 'foolishness' ?
Actually, they are doing you a favor by warning you of the perils to come......
Maybe I should receive equal commendation for warning them that if they don't get away from me, I'll put my foot up their redneck fundamentalist @$$. They can take their fire & brimstone nonsense somewhere else. Do you see the amount of violence that such limitations on speech can prevent?
Man, I remember one time I was at the laundromat. Two JW women come up to me, trying to hand me a copy of the Watch Tower. I told them to "F@ck off." They started giving me this "deer in the headlights" look. I said to them, "You f@ckin' deaf? I said f@ck off." The great thing is, when you free yourself from the shackles of religion, you can do that. Man, it feels good!
Melani23 wrote:
However, if such activity were banned, to be fair, you would also have to ban any direct solicitation by businesses, charities, NGO, law enforcenment, children/youth groups, etc that regularly approach people on the street/in public venues.
No you wouldn't. Countries that ban religious discussion in public don't. Religion is an uncomfortable topic for most, and it can lead to people getting upset or even physically combat. Those other things you mentioned do not lead to that. Trust me, the Turks aren't complaining whatsoever about that limitation on speech.
Melani23 wrote:
P.S. Not totally - it just Christians they persecute and prosecute for beaking the 'law'. Muslms get off. You see, selective people apply the LAW selectively.
Have you been to Turkey? I have - many times. I can tell you that it applies to ALL religions. Quit with your assumptions.
Don't proscribe assumptions towards me.
Turkish Law is one thing one paper, but how it is interpreted to favor Islam is another. How is favoring the religion Islam a SECULAR activitty that is fair to all?
Quote:
Part One: Founding principles
The Constitution asserts that Turkey is a secular (2.1) and democratic (2.1), republic (1.1) that derives its sovereignty (6.1) from the people. The sovereignty rests with the Turkish Nation, who delegates its exercise to an elected unicameral parliament, the Turkish Grand National Assembly.
Elements of the Turkish military police have been discovered murdering civilian noncombatants as recently as 2005 (when three perpetrators were caught with a list of names of intended victims, all Kurds). The resulting investigation was stymied by the refusal of the military to cooperate.
Various violations of women's rights (such as virginity tests for women entering university) have been phased out, but many remain. Often the situation "on the ground" (particularly in rural areas) does not reflect that which is prescribed by law.
Conforming with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the Council of State on secularism, faith-based schools are banned and all schools must follow a secular curriculum. Religious education may only be given by appointed teachers who have studied at Turkey's secular universities. In practice, only Sunni theology is taught. Hmmmm, how is that SECULAR?
There is a de-facto domination of Sunni school of Islam within Turkish society, despite the protections offered by formal secularism. Sunni imams are nominated and paid by the state directorate of religious affairs.Hmm, why does a secular state need a dept. religious affiars? The Alevis pray in Cemevis, but the government funds only the building of mosques. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Turkey
Quote:
In a gruesome assault against Turkey's tiny Christian community, five young Muslim Turks entered a Christian publishing office in the southeastern province of Malatya Wednesday and slit the throats of the three Protestant Christians present.
...
"
Quote:
We did this for our country," an identical note in the pockets of all five young men read, Channel D television station reported. "They are attacking our religion.
Church officials say their work has become both easier and harder in recent years. On the one hand, reforms associated with Turkey's European Union (EU) membership process have meant that proselytizing is now legal and that more churches have an opportunity to obtain legal status. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0425/p07s02-woeu.html
As I stated before, the Turkish gov't is not fair regarding their OWN LAW.
Hypocrites, just like America in regards to racial equality. Just ask the Kurds in Turkey
So, please, ....do not cite Turkey as an example of a truly SECULAR State where everyones rights from religion are protected by law. They protect no one from Islam, lol
P.S. Generally speaking, is always simply amazies me when so-called 'athesists' and 'secularists' decry Christianity, but bend over and take it for Islam. LOL indeed! http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
Joined: 26 May 2007 {Posts: 394 } Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posted: Wed 18 Jun 2008 02:13 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
Are you advocating violence for mere words? Why should someone passing out tracts or any papers (you have a choice to accept or not) elicit violence if they are not abusive to you? Your JW response was irrational as they never used profanity to you. A simple 'no, go away' or 'leave me alone' would have sufficed.... Hmmmmm
Because the goal isn't to get them to leave me alone for "now," the goal is for them to leave me alone for "good."
Melani23 wrote:
Why should it matter to you what any 'religious' people say about the afterlife if YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEM? Why should their opinion bother you if you don't believe in their 'foolishness' ?
Because either way, they're attempting to insult me. It's all the same to me.
Besides, since you had so much time on your hands to waste by looking those things up, of which you had no previous knowledge, for the sole puprose of responding to my last post, let me remind you of a few things:
There are redneck fundamentalists everyday trying to put "God" into our classrooms here. They whine and complain when evolution is taught in school; they want Creation taught in school. In reality, there's less justification for the fundies, as a whopping 98% of Turks actually reflect that religion. I assure you, when you ask 50 random people in the US what their religion is, you're not going to get 49 Christians.
And what's your point about some random Turks murdering others because of their religion? Are you saying that it's never happened in the states before?
Maybe the reason why atheist and securalist like to decry Christianity so much, is because that's who they're being harassed by.
When Muslims start knocking on my door at 6:30 in the morning, when they stop be in the mall, or hand me tracts and other BS, when they start shouting a bunch of crap on the street corners, maybe then I'll start decrying Islam.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
have been phased out, but many remain. Often the situation "on the ground" (particularly in rural areas) does not reflect that which is prescribed by law. 