"…he called gays a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say homosexuality was dangerous “only that it is inferior to heterosexuality and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”
My basis of thought is to change the words. For instance:
he called JEWS a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say JEWS were dangerous “only that they are inferior to Christians and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”
or
he called BLACKS a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say BLACKS were dangerous “only that they are inferior to WHITES and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”
What about this?
he called the Bush Administration a “threat to humanity”. He insists that he did not say Bush and the U.S. Military were dangerous “only that they are inferior to the French and could, in extreme circumstances, become a danger to mankind.”
I see on preview Rune makes a similar point…
I believe that there is a place where freedom of speech ends, and it’s where real damage is done without provocation. For example, I actually think that writers and speakers who knowingly use false information about a group (Paul Cameron comes to mind- he’s accused gays of specific acts of pedophilic violence that when researched were not only not true but there is no way he could have believed they were true) should be liable for prosecution by the state. However, saying that “In my opinion, [particular minority group]s are evil and unjust and immoral” isn’t that point.
My litmus test for legislation like this is to imagine it in the hands of my own worst political enemies. For example, if it was against the law to say that the Christian Fundamentalist Right is a hateful, deluded, self-serving group of scumbags, I would go to jail. Turnabout is fair play- we must defend the rights to speak even of those who if they were in power would deprive us of our own (the Aryan Nations, the KKK, etc.).
PS- I have tried to find Vanneste’s exact quotes in context online and in Lexis Nexis and I can’t. Perhaps a French speaking Doper can locate and translate them. He really does sound like an ultra conservative tool, among other things stating that colonialism was a good thing for Africa, but… until he advocates actual violence or makes a defamatory accusation he should be allowed to.
Yes. Free speech is free speech. If he doesn’t have the right to say whatever the fuck he wants, regardless of how despicable it is, nobody in France does.
Gag orders never stopped anybody from believing an idea, and they have never prevented someone from acting on it. It just drives them underground, where they are even more dangerous.
Once again, why so? And why does it apply to people when they’re defamed individually but not when they’re defamed as a group? “Otto sacrifices chidren”, “The Ottos sacrify children”, " the cult Otto is a member of sacrifices children", “The ethnic/cultural group Otto is a member of sacrifices children”. What’s the difference, exactly? Why is one protected speech and the other not apart fro “we’re accustomed to do it this way, so it must be the right way”?
As ** Ogre ** puts it, gagging me so that I wont accuse you of being a child murderer won’t prevent me from thining so, nor from acting on it. So, why should I be punished for accusing you publically of being one? Why isn’t it " protected free speech"?
By the way, am I mistaken in believing that there are provisions about burning crosses?
IANAL nor am I an expert in the history of defamation laws, but I believe that the justification for anti-defamation laws, dating back to English common law, is that defaming me does me harm by damaging my reputation. If I am thought of as unsavory, it interferes with my ability to live in a community, to conduct business, etc. The idea that defamation is not protected speech pre-dates the American Constitution and I am unawre that the Founders entertained any thought that the First Amendment could be interpreted to permit it.
No, you’re not. In a shameful decision just under three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that cross burning (even on private property with no one but whites present), because of its history as a symbol of racial hatred and intimidation, is not protected by the First Amendment. It was a horrible decision and one that I hope the Court will soon have the opportunity to revisit and reverse.
On further reflection, what bothers me is that this man has, according to the article, said basically the same thing times without counting while in parliament, but couldn’t be indicted, because what’s said in session is protected speech. But saying it in public outside of a session is a crime?
That just makes no sense to me.
I have a great deal of problems with making legislators immune from behavior that would get anyone else indicted.
Sampiro, I apologize - I thought you were pitting this because you were upset that homosexuals were being given sacred cow status, not because you objected to the hate speech law, itself - regardless of who was or was not protected. I’m with you there, 100%. I can understand why some people support these laws. The speech that we’re trying to protect is vile, disgusting, and offensive in the extreme. I just don’t approve of making special crimes for actions simply because of who the victim might be.
A large part of it is relativity v. objectivity. If I say “Otto has an immoral lifestyle”, that statement is, almost by definition, a relative one: by my (hypothetically- I don’t know anything about Otto’s lifestyle, other than I hope it’s more colorful than mine) standards of morality (or of those of the group I am speaking for), the way Otto leads his life is immoral". If I say “Otto [or the group of which he is a part] practices child abuse”, that is not relative. I am accusing him (or his group) of a specifiic criminal act (child abuse is a legally defined crime) and I had better have hard evidence to back up my claim or he can and will and should sue me for defamation of character, malicious libel, and if I repeat it in court perjury.
Saying “Otto is a cunt” (the example used above) is also relative. Clearly I’m not saying “Otto is, in fact, a vagina who somehow posts to the Internet”, so it’s obviously again relative. I’m saying that “in my opinion, Otto is a [however you define the pejorative vernacular usage of cunt]”, and while not illegal due to what I’ve said I have, if I post this in a public place, violated an obscenity law. Otto really won’t be able to sue me for damages in all likelihood because all I have done is expressed an opinion.
Now, if I say “Otto is a jerk” (sorry Otto, nothing personal you’re strictly a hypothetical), it’s no harm no foul. “Jerk” is not an obscenity, and I am clearly expressing my opinion. It’s highly unlikely that I would do any real damage to his reputation because other people think Otto’s not a jerk and most people know that I’m expressing an opinion. If I say “Otto is a heroin addict” then even though heroin use is mostly a “victimless crime” it is illegal and the opinions of most people would be negatively influenced by the “knowledge” that Otto uses an illegal narcotic, and it’s not a matter of opinion whether or not he uses it but a fact that can be proven one way or the other, so if he doesn’t use heroin he can sue me for damages.
“Otto is a drunk” and he can prove that he isn’t, then he can sue me for damages because even though being a drunk isn’t illegal, having the reputation of being a drunk can be damaging. If I say “Otto has been drunk in public before” then I’ve made a comment that is probably true (most of us have been drunk in a public place at some point) and, even if Otto is a lifelong teetotaller and has in fact never been drunk, it would be hard to sue me for damages because unless he’s a Mormon Deacon the knowledge that he’s been drunk in public probably isn’t going to damage his reputation considerably in the opinions of the legal construct known as a reasonable person.
Even if I did go on nationwide TV tonight, however, and say “Otto is responsible for the deaths of more than 1,258 New Guinea tribesmens and their cats, whom he personally ate during a heroin fueld Satanic ritual!”, I would not (to my knowledge- please correct me if I’m wrong) be arrested under American laws. I would be sued and could be ordered by the courts to make a public apology and retraction (“the real number of New Guinea tribesmen Otto et was less than 18 and it wasn’t heroin but Space Rocks”) and if I didn’t comply, then I could be jailed, but otherwise I would be free.
But if gays are thought of as unsavory, it interferes with their ability to live in a community, to conduct business, etc, so what is the difference?
Why is it OK to interfere with gays’ ability to live in a community, and not OK to interfere with a particular person’s ability to live in a community?
My own cite acknowledged that there are criminal statutes on the books about defamation, but also noted that these are generally old legislation that is very rarely enforced.
Given that acknowledgement, it doesn’t contribute much to the discussion simply to point to the type statute that i’ve already acknowledged the existence of. For actual practical purposes, the more important issue is how old that statute is, and whether it is actually enforced in any meaningful sense in modern Wisconsin.
Furthermore, it says nothing about the situation in other states.
Maybe, but that is a completely arbitrary choice. Named or not, as a standing member of the Church of Guinean and Feline Cuisine, your reputation is harmed in the same way by the fallacious statement made.
Actually, I think that under french law, you’re probably less protected as an individual than as a member of one of the aforementionned groups. These laws are intended to protect specific groups who have been historically reviled, opressed or otherwise harmed.
Giving specific legal protections or even advantages to specific groups isn’t an unheard of concept in the USA, is it?
I support hate crimes legislation only insofar as it penalizes VIOLENT ACTS that have as part of their purpose to “send a message” or divide or intimidate communities based on some group factor. Extra harm, extra punishment.
But I strongly oppose laws against speech, no matter how hateful and vile, and any hate crime law based on the premise that hate speech alone is itself a crime is illegitimate IMHO.
