American vs. non-American conceptions of free speech

Great Debates
101

That’s complete crap. When Chomsky shares an essay with a man defending him against charges of anti-Semitism and allows the man to publish that essay as the foreword to his book he is very clearly “engaging” with the man.

Again, that’s crap. Chomsky specifically has declared he doesn’t even see “a hint of anti-Semitism” in “Holocaust Denial” or in Faurisson’s claims and he insists that he doesn’t think Faurisson is an anti-Semite.

This statement is also complete crap. I never once said, nor do I think that Chomsky has the slightest sympathy for Holocaust denial. I merely said he insists he sees “no hint of anti-Semitism in denial of the Holocaust”(his phrase not mine).

I haven’t disputed any of his ideas. I merely pointed out what he actually believes. Mhendo made a foolish post where he insisted Chomsky insisted Holocaust Deniers shouldn’t be “engaged” with and I pointed out Chomsky’s real record when it came to Holocaust denial particularly where Chomsky went well beyond defending Faurisson’s right to “free speech”.

Incidentally, it should be noted that what you, Mhendo, and Chomsky have all ignored is that Faurisson was not punished for claiming that he Holocaust was hoax cooked up by Zionists to create the state of Israel, but was punished for engaging in “academic fraud” because he forged evidence to support his wild accusations.

No serious person believes that “Free Speech” should protect people from academic fraud.

102

It’s s shame the debate is focused on nazis rather than things that really hinder free speech, eg Uk libel law.

103

quite right, It is a pretty bad black mark against us over here. It I getting better though.
This is one famous case that I personally supported with cold hard cash and it did have knock-on effect to legislation but still, there is a long way to go.

104

Why focus on the UK alone? Libel law itself is ipso facto as much a restriction on freedom of speech as hate speech laws are. If the people who decry hate speech laws because they abridge freedom of speech were really sincere they’d go after libel law first, rather than hate speech laws. As it stands, in most Common Law jurisdictions without hate speech laws, implying that a billionaire is homosexual or the scion of a powerful political dynasty is an adulterer is actionable in the courts yet setting up a Radio-Television Libre des Mille Collines analogue to spill bile against one particular ethnic group then stand back and watch as a massacre starts is not. A completely absurd situation.

I’ve yet to see any reasonable defence of why a wealthy individual should be protected from some forms of speech yet entire races or communities of people should not.

105

Ibn Warraq, as someone with no stake in this discussion – I’ve mostly just read the Chomsky hijack, in fact – maybe you’d take into consideration my relatively objective opinion: the chargers of misrepresentation are not wholly out of line. You’re repeatedly phrasing things in ambiguous ways that would tend to lead someone unfamiliar with the whole affair to draw mistaken inferences. Two examples:

This implies that Chomsky wrote the essay because he felt that the accusations against Faurisson were incorrect, that that inaccuracy was the inspiration or reason for the essay, and that his purpose with the essay was to rebut charges of anti-semitism. However, to the contrary, the essay is quite explicit: his only interest in the matter is the question of freedom of expression: “I am concerned here solely with a narrow and specific topic, namely, the right of free expression of ideas, conclusions and beliefs. I have nothing to say here about the work of Robert Faurisson or his critics, of which I know very little, or about the topics they address, concerning which I have no special knowledge.”

(Emphasis added.) To continue, the word “insisted” here mischaracterizes what Chomsky wrote, plainly overstating (to a careful reader) Chomsky’s conviction. His paragraph on the anti-semitism charges is clearly an aside, tacked on to the end of a discussion about something fundamentally different, which he prefaces by pointing out (for the second time) that he doesn’t know much about Faurisson’s work. Far from “insisting” that Faurisson was not an anti-semite, he merely writes a few sentences declaring that he doesn’t find the evidence of anti-semiticism that he is aware of to be persuasive.

Moreover, I wonder why you put the words “was not anti-semitic” in quotations. I was curious to see the context of those words in the essay, only to discover that Chomsky never writes them at all, nor anything else resembling so flat a declaration. This is much more unambiguously a misrepresentation. (Unless you’re quoting from something else that Chomsky wrote, in which case, I apologize, but also you should have been much more clear.)
Of course, typically, I’d just ignore this sort of thing as merely the imprecise use of language, and some minor shading that we all typically engage in through word choice. However, in this discussion you’ve been very particular about the ways that others have portrayed yours or Chomsky’s words, and you insulted Peremensoe’s reasonable and (IMO) quite civil criticisms as having been offered “foolishly and stupidly.” I don’t think that, at the moment, you’re matching the standard for precision that you seem to hold others to.

106

There are so many things I’d like to adress in this thread. But let’s pick this one. Even though speech isn’t the proximate cause of death, it still can be the maincause, providing you’re influential/famous/charismatic enough. You could very well cause many people to kill who would never have considered it otherwise.

Case in point : “Radio mille collines” during the Rwandan genocide. People who operated it without a doubt bear more responsibility for the killings than any individual murderer.

Arguing that because words don’t directly kill, they can’t be the real cause of the death seems short-sighted at best, or even disingeneous. And there are already situations where the person who is the proximate killer isn’t the one bearing most of the responsibility. For instance nazi leaders who didn’t kill people directly. No coroner is going to find that the person died of a wrtitten order, either. Still,they have been sentenced.

107

I also want to come in on this.
Speech is not the proximate cause of harm in any of the other ways speech is restricted too. If I give a bunch of terrorists detailed instructions and access codes they could use to hijack an aircraft, then my words have not directly harmed anyone. So should that be protected speech too?

108

The slippery slope doesn’t matter if you’re already at the bottom of the hill. States should not do things that put the government’s agenda over the people’s rights.

The examples I gave (Chinese limits on religious speech and association, German criminalization of pro-Nazi speech, Turkish and French controls on the discussion of the Armenian genocide) are examples of states reducing the rights of their citizens. The governments claim they’re for the benefit of their people, but the restrictions seem to further the state’s agenda (by protecting the state from organizations that might challenge the current political structure, or by escalating a diplomatic row) more than it helps the populations.

I’m not saying these laws will lead to bad things in the future (that is, a slippery-slope argument), I’m these laws are bad things now.

Just like burning a cross on someone else’s lawn is not protected by free speech, planning an activity that is criminal is not protected.

To Americans in general, it is clear that:

  1. It is criminal to kill and steal.
  2. It is criminal to plan with others to kill and steal.
  3. It’s not criminal to talk about how killing and stealing are happening, did happen, or may happen.
  4. It’s not criminal to internally think that someone should be killed or stolen from.
  5. It’s not criminal to openly say that someone should be killed or stolen from, if there is no intent to kill or steal.

(I’m sure there’s finer distinctions, but I’m not a lawyer.) I expect Europeans in general would agree with statements 1-4, and 5 is the point of contention.

109

I’m pointing out that the logic of only if the speech is the proximate cause of harm, should it be prohibited quickly falls down, with a simple counter-example. There are many others.

Also…are you sure you’ve got that right? I would not expect to have the right to do anything to someone else’s lawn. No need to even bring freedom of speech into it, if that’s the only issue.

I dispute that it is so clear-cut. What if I give away state secrets that I know could be used to commit a terrorist atrocity, but I have no knowledge (or involvement) in any specific plan?
That would be fine according to the above logic.

110

In the context of this discussion, I find that to be a really remarkable and revealing statement. **In a functional democracy, the government IS the people. ** It’s extraordinary to me that anyone could make such a distinction, one that sets out the government as some sort of enemy agency instead of being the collective will of the people that elect and empower it.

This sums up the entire crux of the argument here, and the difference between the US and the social democracies of western Europe, Canada, and much of the Commonwealth. It’s the difference between a nation founded on the principle of “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and one founded on the principle of a peaceful and just society. One can argue the virtues of either, but they are not the same, and seem to me to be the difference between fervent idealism and the calmly pragmatic desire for social order.

Many of them probably are. So what? It has nothing to do with the argument that specific laws against hate speech have societal benefits and cause no societal harm, beyond the fact that they irritate libertarians.

The Supreme Court disagrees:
On June 22, 1992, the Supreme Court decided R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, holding that burning crosses inside the fenced yard of a black family living across the street is protected speech.

111

You are repeating a claim debunked in post 88.

SCOTUS has not ruled that burning a cross on a black families lawn is protected speech.

They struck down an over road law. In fact, in your own link SCOTUS specifically rules that it is NOT protected speech.

112

Nothing was debunked. Pleonast stated in #108 that “Just like burning a cross on someone else’s lawn is not protected by free speech…”. I’m pointing out, as per my link above, that this is incorrect. It should be the case, but it isn’t – per the SCOTUS interpretation of the First Amendment in the cited case, this ugly historic incitement to violence is considered protected speech.

The city passed a law which was basically a weak version of a hate speech law, treating the burning of crosses and similar traditional symbols of hate and intimidation as a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court ruled they can’t do that. The guilty party got off, and future prosecutions have to be based on charges that are much more difficult to prove, sometimes impossible, because the scum hide under a broad umbrella of unassailable “free speech” immunity. This is precisely why specific, narrowly circumscribed hate speech laws exist. What do you think you debunked?

113

This.

114

wolfpup, the decision struck down that law as overly broad; it did not specifically protect cross-burning.

115

Respectfully, did you even bother to read your own link?

It show SCOTUS specifically declared that burning a cross on someone’s lawn was not protected speech.

For the second time, from your own link:

As I already said, as Per has mentioned, and as SCOTUS said, the law was struck down because it was too over broad not because burning a cross on someone else’s lawn is protected speech.

116

I don’t disagree with your view on why communities are not protected, they should b and are in Australia but I don’t see why libel laws are so bad. Libel needs to be proven and if it is then you should suffer.

Now there is a whole other debate on access to legal rep for poorer people but that is another day.

117

You may be saying it for the second time, but you are misunderstanding the case for the second time. Saying that cross-burning is “reprehensible” is not the same as saying that it isn’t protected speech. And SCOTUS did not rule that the law was “too over broad” – as a matter of fact it explicitly declined to rule on that specific question altogether. The “over broad” claim was the ruling of the original trial court, and it was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court (link below):

The State Supreme Court ruling is one that I agree with, and that is where matters stood when it was heard by SCOTUS. The key parts of the pertinent SCOTUS ruling that I believe are most relevant here, with my emphasis on the highlights, were as follows:

So let me summarize. The trial court’s ruling that the law was “over broad” was not even considered by the SCOTUS. What SCOTUS was addressing was the alleged possibility of “regulation of ideas” (part “b” above) which they amplified in part “c” by saying that the St. Paul law – and the Minnesota State Supreme Court’s upholding of it – was unconstitutional in essence because it made it illegal to burn a cross on black family’s lawn but not illegal for someone else to put up a sign telling racist bigots to leave town. IOW, the problem was that the government was taking a position on the dissemination of ideas by making hateful racist expression like cross-burning illegal. Well, gee, color me a naive Canadian or European, but I thought that taking a position on racism and discrimination was precisely one of the government’s important functions!

To restate that with crystal clarity, the SCOTUS upheld a long and ongoing tradition that the government could not enact hate speech laws, period. The justification was that it discriminated against one group – cross-burning racists – and not equivalently against another group, like those who condemn racists, and therefore constituted “the possibility that regulation of ideas is afoot”. This is precisely the kind of absolutist interpretation of free speech that I object to, it’s precisely the argument that we’re having in this discussion, and it’s pretty much uniquely American.

118

People have to realise that American speech is restricted in some ways more than it is in other couintries.
It’s only because they are constantly told how free they are, that they believe it.

119

The point being if you accept the argument that justifies laws against libel and slander then I don’t see how you can reasonably object to laws that prohibit hate speech that targets a race, ethnicity or community. The only internally consistent positions that I see here (pending some amazing argument to the contrary) are: no libel or slander and no hate speech laws, or libel and slander laws plus hate speech laws.

As it stands, people are OK with some weird middle ground wherein one is unable to imply that a man is a homosexual to the detriment of his “reputation”, yet are aghast at being unable to call for the death of an entire race, or whipping up a braying crowd with rants about the perfidy of the Jews. Why is one a legitimate restriction on freedom of speech, but the other is a step too far?

Surely, if we were to rip up Western Civilisation and start again from scratch, we’d rightly recognise that preventing communities from being intimidated with calls for their collective massacre, or other violent acts against them, was an issue that requires legislation, whereas protecting the “reputations” of individuals was a fairly trivial concern that perhaps could be dealt with at some point in the future, if we had the time.

120

Ok, first of all, we’re not talking about “cross-burning” we’re talking about “cross-burning on someone else’s property”. Yes, the first depending on the situation, such as burning a cross on your own lawn, is protected speech.

However SCOTUS most certainly did not rule burning a cross on a black family’s lawn was “protected speech”. As your own link stated, which for the third time you appear to have not read stated.

They explicitly declare that the city of St. Paul can “prevent such behavior”.

If your claim that SCOTUS ruled that it was “protected speech” than they couldn’t. However, as was noted at the time(I was actually going to school in the Twin Cities area) the people could still be charged with a number of different crimes such as vandalism, threats, malicious mischief, trespassing etc. which wouldn’t trample the First Amendment.

If SCOTUS had ruled that burning a cross on someone else’s lawn was “protected speech” than St. Paul couldn’t have used such laws, but despite your protestations they didn’t.

SCOTUS struck down the law because it banned the burning of a cross or the displaying of a swastika even on one’s own property. Under the law, people could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a swastika or hanging one out their window not just spray painting one on a synagogue or burning a cross on someone’s lawn.

BTW, since you have endorsed Canada’s laws making Holocaust denial a crime, would you favor Canada arresting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud Abbas, and other Middle Eastern leaders who have a history of denying the Holocaust if they came to Canada?