I’m in agreement with the OP. No matter how big a moron he is, or how reprehensible his comments are, he should not be jailed for what he says.
Only in those countries with institutional monarchs, and in name only. Technically, yes, i’m a subject of Elizabeth II - but she holds no power over me. Our government (which, yes, is “allowed” by her, again in name only) does. Really, there’s no difference between being a citizen here and a citizen there. We too (well, to the same extent, anyway) master our governments.
Nonetheless the OP is justified in the choice of words for the title. When people talk about the death penalty in America they talk about America as a whole eventhough in 12 states there is no capital punishment whatsoever.
Could you drop this “subject” nonsense? As I understand it, there is not one monarchy left in Europe where the monarch is considered to rule with anything other than the approval of the democratic system. That’s explicit, for example, in the constitution of Spain. Even in the UK, where the monarch reigns “by the grace of God,” it’s been known for centuries that Parliament has the authority to determine who the monarch is.
Citizens in Europe feel quite entitled to govern themselves and to inform their government in no uncertain terms as to what they would and would not like. Rates of democratic participation are higher in Europe than they are in the US; turnout in the most recent UK elections was 61%, in France it was 71.6%, in the US, 42.45% (which is the highest turnout since 1968).
I don’t agree with these laws either, but please disabuse yourself of the notion that it’s because Europeans are preternaturally servile.
Jeezus.
I agree with yojimbo.
Oh and I wouldn’t equate the holocaust with a prophet.
One is a well documented fact, with even a few survivors left [murderers and victims], the other is a belief - no fact.
Well, let’s add Belarus and Moldavia. Not really beacons of free speech and democracy either.
I think our American friends are a little narrow sighted here. Truly free speech doesn’t exist in the U.S. either. The debacle about Janet Jackson’s tit, the way Howard Stern has been harassed by the FCC and laws concerning porn show that while the Austrian goverment finds Holocaust denial offensive and penalizes it, the American goverment(s) (and people) find sexual content offensive and penalyzes that.
Damn fool thing to do: quite apart from making a martyr out of the guy, you can bet that the hardliners in Tehran and Muslim firebrands elsewhere will be taking note. “So, they can mock our prophet but deny Jews were killed and they go to jail? Their Western “free speech” is a travesty, and a Zionist plot!”
Damned thing is, they’d have at least the makings of a point: Irving’s a nasty shit, but the best thing to do would be to ignore him, same as it’s the best thing to do with inflammatory cartoons of Mohammed- or Catholic-baiting episodes of South Park, for that matter.
I doubt that most embassy-burning Muslim mobs will distinguish between Austria and Denmark, either. Sigh. Stay tuned for more outrage and killings.
Big difference. The Janet Jackson and Howard Stern issues were not criminal matters, but matters of the regulation of public airwaves. Janet can flash her tits all day on cable, and no one will say a thing. For that matter Larry Flynt has made a career out of printing just about every offensive thing imaginable, and he’s not in jail.
Let me rephrase. I was thinking historically, thinking over the history of the struggle for free speech. It is true that under most cases, the rights of a person of a country are similar, in Europe as in the US, but at the edges, sometimes different perspectives, brought by the history of the country, are brought into light.
The US has problems with fundamentalist religion. It was populated by religious nuts, and we’ve had them ever since. That’s why we have seperation of church and state, so one group of nuts couldn’t outlaw the others.
Europe has a history of state-sponsored religions, and other institutions. From that, and from the previous powers of the state, there is a general sense, I have found, that the state should take care of things. The state can outlaw speech it finds a danger.
In America, it can try, but generally, it won’t succeed.
Now, the FCC is out of control, I won’t deny that, but Ms. Jackson’s tit can be shown any number of places beyond the public airwaves. You could broadcast it all day and all night on cable, and the state can’t regulate that, because it’s not a public utility.
I guess the comparison comes down to whether one equates Janet Jackson’s breast and the Holocaust (talk about queasy allusions). And Howard Stern can pretty much say whatever he wants, now that he’s on satellite radio and not speaking over the public airwaves.
I had not had the idea that European nations were particular beacons of free speech - one noteworthy example being strict limitations on criminal trial coverage in the U.K.
As for the Holocaust, arguing that it is not a special case is weak, because the ideology that produced it caused such destruction and horrors in Europe in the memory of many living people. The desire to suppress neo-Nazis and their spiritual sidekicks is understandable, but still wrong. Laugh at them, shun them - don’t jail them.
Not really Sam, and you know it.
It’s about midnight here, and I’ll dig up cites tomorrow (mostly because I can’t find my copy of Reefer Madness by Schlosser right now).
If it was only a matter of public airways. But it ain’t. Someone mentioned Larry Flynt. Look at how many times he’s been dragged to court. And check out the infinite numbers of threads here in the pit where local legislators try to ban books, controll what is taught in schools, revising text books. Just today I read about some nutcase in Wisconsin who want to ban the use of BCE and CE in school books.
Now, strictly legal, this might be a the first amendment issue, but don’t try to tell me that there aren’t politicians who try to limit “free speech” in the U.S. (and in some cases succeeding).
And no, of course not. Janet Jacksons tit is cosmical magnitudes away from Holocaust denial. The thing is, when European courts go overboard and limit free speech, it’s something serious, when U.S. agencies do the same, it’s about an ugly boob.
Americans on the SDMB (rightfully so) often take offence when people from outside the U.S. use too broad a brush (item: aldebaran). Well, when you get your panties tightly twined and and your knees jerk about free speech issues abroad, maybe you should check your own track record.
BTW, as a (former ) journalist, I think it’s reprehensible to do what the Austiran court did. However, the smug attitude from Americans is certainly not justified.
