OTOH IMHO leaving intolerant speech to fester leads to extremes that can drive policy, it is also important to notice how in the USA groups like the National Review are ignoring the context to declare that “Sharia Law” is guiding the courts in Sweden, just about the same reasoning that got the right wing infosphere to tell their readers/viewers that there were cities in Europe that were under sharia law too.
The point here is that while it is true that the press does a good job denouncing the hate-speech-ers that bubble of information is so obnoxious in the right wing that I do think that sometimes it needs to be popped at least with the ones spreading the hate and one place to do that can be in the courts.
If this guy really is maliciously making things up on a regular basis, it shouldn’t be at all hard to catch him in a lie. Prosecuting him for something that turns out to be true because the authorities don’t think he could reasonably have known that it was true is absurd.
The truth should be an absolute defense against accusations of libel, slander, defamation, or hate speech.
Which is fair enough. But clamping down too much on what is perceived as “hate speech” can lead to legitimate criticism of minorities and policies being quashed. Had people not been afraid to address the issue then the situation in Rotherham UK may have come out far ealier. If it’s worth pointing out that free speech has its dangers then it’s worth pointing out clamping down on free speech also has it’s dangers.
There are two things though that makes me doubt that the truth is in favor of Michael Hess. Well 3 actually.
First it is the extreme over reach of many on the right telling us the “background”, going to the extreme of saying that “Sharia Law” is taking control, in reality the law can get extremists from the Muslims too.
Second: The BBC reported on the changes on how rape is reported to explain the rise in the number of rapes reported in Sweden, Muslims were not mentioned (and there may be a reason, look at number 3), and among the people that got caught being accused was Austrian Julianne Assange of Wiki leaks, not a Muslim as far as I know.
And third: The numbers regarding Muslims are also likely to be pumped up or made up:
Another poster made this comment in that skeptical site:
I do not think that case involved free speech but authorities not doing their job, AFAICR yes, they did use the excuse of PC preventing further involvement, but that was seen as an asinine excuse.
I don’t believe the case involved the legal limitations on free speech(though I dont totally discount the threat of legal action, or career destroying actions being taken), but certainly a cultural limitation on free speech. The asinine excuses are now seen as asinine excuses. Whether they were viewed as asinine at the time depends on who you ask.
This may be more theoretical than absolutely true in practice, but First Amendment rights mean that you cannot prevent any expression of language.
You can then be punished for inappropriate use - sparking a riot, lying, revealing various kinds of confidential information, etc. - but you can also then defend yourself for your expression, with that absolute right as your primary defense.
Even the most enlightened European countries have absolutely contrary laws that forbid people to say certain things, in advance. They may work out to much the same thing in the end, especially in the Patriot Act era, but it’s the fundamental difference of theory that is important in the long run.
Rules against hate speech do not attack one specific ideology, but a specific type of speech. It treats all ideas equally the same way that certain laws that abridge religious freedoms treat all religions equally.
The point is, hate speech has no value as speech. It doesn’t aid the political process. It does have negative value because it hurts others and encourages discrimination. It is therefore made illegal.
Freedom of speech itself is not an inherent value. I really, really wish Americans would get this through their heads.
Freedom of speech has limits, and hate speech is a perfectly legitimate one. If Charlie Hebdo had been found guity of hate speech, the world would be a better place if they were censored. The only reason I even support Charlie Hebdo is on the provision that they were not engaged in hate speech.
Enabling jerks is not the reason for freedom of speech. I don’t know when freedom of speech became this god-like figure for so many. When you say you are for hate speech, you’re just saying “I want the right to be a bigot.” Why?
At first, of course, it seems ridiculous to disallow a truth defense. But consider whether we want courts to be the arbiters of truth…
Researcher: “Well, according to Smith v. Jones (TX Court of Appeals, 2016) and the subsequent Truth in Texas History Act (Felony Act Against Alamo Denial) of 2017, not less than five people died at the Alamo. Violators are subject to 5 to 10 years in prison and a lifetime on the Deniers’ Registry. This new first-hand account that was discovered in the Texas State Archives that says that all but two made it out alive is therefore incorrect, is downright illegal, and can therefore be disregarded. Anyone got matches handy?”
So, you think it just that the government assume the speech to be wrong, even though research hasn’t been done? That, as other’s have said, is Orwellian.
And whom do you trust to tell you which unpopular things you might want to say have enough “value” as speech to be allowed? I’m not interested in the “value” of somebody’s speech so much as I am interested in not being arrested for saying something that somebody else in power decided I shouldn’t get to say.
I’m also not interested in being denied the right to hear somebody else’s unpopular opinion and have a meaningful discussion about it.
Get this through your own head: Your opinion on the matter does not constitute an ironclad law of the universe that Americans as a people are simply too thick-skulled to accept. I believe very strongly that freedom of speech itself IS an inherent value. That’s not a denial of a provable fact, it’s a difference of opinion.
Based on this case alone it is clear that you only need to get supporting evidence ahead of time to make seeping generalizations about a group of people.
In any case libel laws still exist in the USA so even here there are restrictions to the freedom of speech.
Please read post #24. It is not likely that those were facts. And never forget that guys like that were the ones that fooled many on the right about Sharia “no go” cities in Europe.
That seems a lot like saying that there cannot be any laws against arson – if you want to set fire to someone’s house, the police have to stand around and watch. But by golly, if the place burns down, or people get killed, then you are liable for the consequences! How does that make sense? A closely parallel scenario was brought up in the discussion about drunk driving. Everyone agrees that drunk drivers who cause accidents and kill and maim people should face the consequences, but try to support proactive preventive measures like sobriety checkpoints, and you get accused of being some kind of Orwellian tyrant advocating “Minority Report” style thought crime!
At the most basic level it’s because many Americans have absolutely no trust in their governments.
But courts ARE arbiters of truth. It’s a fundamental part of what they do. Every time any accused declares himself innocent of a charge, it becomes the court’s job to arbitrate truth.
Ah, that “trust” thing again! What is being missed in comments like this is that hate speech laws are not merely arbitrary laws against “unpopular” speech, or nasty or hurtful speech. They are very specific laws against very narrowly defined kinds of speech that are demonstrably and seriously harmful to the goal of a peaceful society, the mitigation of which harm is judged to outweigh the limitation on constitutional rights. The test for hate speech is usually a very high bar indeed. To imply otherwise is to seriously misunderstand what hate speech laws are for and how they are applied.
I completely disagree. If I randomly accuse you of being a murderer when I’ve absolutely no reason to believe you’re a murderer, it’s certainly a malicious lie on my part, hence defamation. The fact that by chance it turns out that you’re actually a murderer doesn’t change the slighest bit my nefarious intent. I intended to gratuitously and undeservedly harm your reputation, and I should be sanctioned for that.
Yes, that’s true, but since we don’t have a way to determine the intent of the claimant, we should rely on evidence. And if the claim turns out to be true, that’s about as strong as the evidence can be.
Someone who makes a true claim should not be required to prove whether that claim was arrived at in a reasonable way. If they are in fact making unfounded claims that are false (as most unfounded claims would be), punish them for the false ones. If you can’t find a false one, I’d seriously question the idea that their claims are as unfounded or nefarious as you might think.
Worse, if the truth of a claim is not a defense against defamation, you invite the worst sorts of abuse of the justice system. Powerful interests would be able to silence dissent by attacking it at the periphery.