I am constantly amazed,...

A noble idea, as the pen is stronger than the sword. However ideas can only be countered with other ideas if there is a certain level of intelligence. I believe hate control laws were made not to control speech , but to prevent a "smarter" denier from imposing his views on more gullable people, a bit like a guru and a sect. If one comes on this forum, he"ll be put back at his place, but it is not always the case anywhere in daily life. I however perfectly agree that the political correct fashion is sometimes gangrening our liberty . I remember ebay banning on my kid's sales because he was selling WW2 stamps from Bohemia morevia.... Or this museum which was asked to remove a flag...

 

We are moving slightly off topic but it's inevitable with something like this.

My two cents for what they are woth:

- Holocaust deniers are crazies and possibly dangerous ones, can't really understand why they do it but putting them on trial may not be the right response as pubblicity seeking looks like to be a big part of the motivation for a lot of them. And before anybody suggests a lunatic asylum that's what the KGB was doing .......

- Right of speech is really slippery ground, I think society needs to stop "hate speech" as there is a substantial risk that those guys will influence an idiot, and there are always plenty of those around, to violent action (read terrorism). The best way of doing this would be for the "moderates" close to "the crazy" to do it by themselves but if that doesn't happen something has to be done. Putting the bar between "talk" and "action" is too late unless we are ready to accept some random killings as "the lesser evil", a really tough choice.

- Despite the above reading in a paper about a religious leader arrested for "promoting violence" or of police sistematically infiltrating religious and opposition political groups "to gather evidence" gives me a very very very bad feeling.

- I believe politicians riding what is basically a "racist platform" are just as guilty as the "hate speakers" and a lot more dangerous, they may be using milder language but they have a lot more power and bigger audiences. We have been seeing a lot of those recently especially in Europe. And stopping them without bringing the whole democratic system down is really hard.

- So in the end there is truth in "the pen is mightier than the sword" but the best weapon to fight a pen is a lot more pens, if those fail it's a mess.

 

An interesting point, however the Ist amendment can be used to define,limit or overturn laws proscribing certain language whenever it is judged prudent to do so.

Perhaps the hate legislation you refer to is similar in purpose to the laws enacted in post war Germany that is to allow society to heal in the short term (I was being a devilsadvocate).

I personally would prefer a society were a "1st amendment law" is sacroscant, your point

is absolutely correct in my opinion

~Steve

 

That idea supposes that the state has an obligation to protect "stupid" people from "smarter" people who might persuade them to accept invalid concepts.

But who decides who is "dumb" and who is "smart" and which ideas are "valid" and which are not? The state? Then we are back to thought control and repression of free speech. And once the state starts deciding which ideas are valid, and thus permissible, and which are not, someone will abuse that power to gain personal control of people, just like Hitler did.

It just doesn't work; either the freedom of expression is absolute or it doesn't exist at all.

 

That idea supposes that the state has an obligation to protect "stupid" people from "smarter" people who might persuade them to accept invalid concepts.

But who decides who is "dumb" and who is "smart" and which ideas are "valid" and which are not? The state? Then we are back to thought control and repression of free speech. And once the state starts deciding which ideas are valid, and thus permissible, and which are not, someone will abuse that power to gain personal control of people, just like Hitler did.

It just doesn't work; either freedom of expression is absolute or it doesn't exist at all.

 

That is debatable. There are laws restricting hate speeches in Europe, but if If there wasn't free speech I wouldn't be talking to you right now. I mean it's not like North Korea. Do you really think you can say anything anywhere in the USA without being arrested? But aren't we getting off topic?

 

No, I don't think we are getting off topic. The original poster raised the question of Holocaust denial in Austria, which is a matter of free speech, or rather the suppression thereof, in Austria and Germany.

And no, I don't think the issue of free speech is debatable; you either have it, or you don't. The fact that you choose not to express your opinions in a manner that constitutes what is called "hate speech" doesn't mean that you have free speech.

Since there are laws prohibiting what the state defines as "hate speech" in both Europe and the US, neither you, nor I, enjoy freedom of speech. We are restricted in what we can legally say in public. That is exactly what North Korea does with it's citizens; restricts what they can say in public. The only difference is that North Korea does not pretend to extend the right of freedom of expression to it's citizens, as does France and the US. Just because you have no desire to utter those prohibited statements does not mean you enjoy freedom of speech. Different states may restrict utterances on different topics, and for different reasons, but it all amounts to suppressing freedom of speech.

Once the state starts defining what you may or may not say, it will sooner or later abuse that power to perpetrate it's own power. That, my friend, is a very slippery slope.

 

Let's say that the restrictions are at different degrees then, I have much less to fear in Europe if I crticize a government, than if I were a Chinese saying something against my rulers. If you consider that even in the USA there is no free speech, would there be a 100% free speech country in the world in your opinion?

 

Skipper

I live in Britain part of the EU, EU legislation legally protects Whistle Blowing by government employees, In Britain last week a nurse had her livelyhood taken from her because she had the afrontry to use a camera at work to film apayling neglect of eldely people in the "care system".

It will be difficult despite the publicity for this matter to be redressed because the "court" that took her right to work away is a professional association not part of the legal system. It may not be china but put yourself in the position of this 57 year old woman who cannot work and has no right to welfare as they consider she made herself unemployed by her own actions.

Steve

 

I agree in theory but in practice your statement that "free speech" must be absolute to be called so is not practical.
In these times of easy access to deadly weapons, (and limiting access to all potential weapons is a very very bad idea) society needs some safeguards against "hate preachers", if you wait until you have organized groups like the Red Brigades, RAF, black panthers, KKK or whatever you will have blood on the streets before the dust settles.
Even more dangerous are weak minded individuals who will be pushed to violence by "hate preachers" as they usually are "completely normal" until they go off the deep end probably taking a few innocents with them.
Obviously society can survive most of the above, as they are by definition weak minded there is a good chance they will be ineffective and incompetent as well but there will be damages and the role of society is to protect the innocent, if some "hate preacher" gets hurt in the process it's the lesser evil, after all he's is is actually getting a little of his own medicine.
It is a very slippery slope but only fanatics believe real life moral issues are always easy.


.

 

What you are saying is that you value security more than the right to freedom of expression. You want the state to protect you from people who might influence others to violence against you. You are willing to delegate to the state the power to determine what is "safe" speech and what is not.

That may be true, but freedom of expression is either absolute, or it simply doesn't exist. By definition, once you surrender to the state the power to determine what can or cannot be said, you have given up the right to free speech.

 

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin

 

The restrictions on speech may differ in degree or in the topics forbidden, but there is no difference in principle.

There used to be free speech in the US, but now with "hate speech" legislation forbidding certain kinds of racial remarks it no longer exists here.

I do not know if true free speech exists anywhere in the world at this point in time, I would have to say, probably not, though one can always hope.

 

Free Speech in the US has never been without limits. It wasn't just the latest "hate speech" stuff, nor the racial remarks timing. Our highest courts (Supreme Courts of all flavors), have always said that freedom of expression is guaranteed only as long as it contains at least a modicum of redeeming qualities. Not just recently, but through most of the past two centuries. Half of the 19th, and all of the 20th starting in 1923 (?) with the Gitlow v People case.

That Supreme Court ruling held that; "Freedom of speech and of the press, as secured by the Constitution, is NOT an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose or an immunity for every possible use of language."

 

The right of freedom of expression existed before the Constitution; the Bill of Rights simply affirms something that was pre-existing. Therefore, the Supreme Court may interpret, or excuse violations of, the freedom of speech, but it cannot change it by imposing an obligation to use language responsibly.

If responsible language were a requirement for the exercise of the right of free speech, politicians would be muzzled most of the time.

 

I would definetly not surrender to the state "the power to determine what can or cannot be said" but that's not the issue, there are some, very limited, forms of spech, that are so likely to end up in someone getting hurt that I think stopping them is needed.
BTW I usually find myself on the side of liberty rather than security, basically I do not believe that the state always has my best interests at heart so I don't want it to have too much power, but I believe it's a trade off, not a an absolute like Franklin's quote states, taken to extremes absolute freedom means nobody has any security and that's not what I want.
And my main worry is not "hate speech" laws, modern technology has created a huge risk to to civil liberties especially freedom of speech, indiscriminated wiretapping, massive use of videosurvellance and huge govermment databases with data mining capability have made the possibility of even western democracies degenerating towards a 1984 like world tecnically possible unless public opinion makes a definte statement that some lines should never never never be crossed.
That was why I, and a lot of of Europeans, were horrified when the US voters chose to re-elect GWB, the man's position on these issues was abbundantly clear.

 

I see what you mean. In that aspect my liberty is indeed restricted. Certain topics such as WWII militaria sections on Ebay (even allied) or certain videos on Youtube are not accessible for all Europeans.I am absolutely outraged by that censorship. Somethimes when I get links on this forum , I feel like a 5 year old when I get a message saying "I am not allowed to view such and such a thing in my country". Big Brother may not be North Korean, but he does exist,

 

It doesn't really matter whether "hate speech" is involved, or whether the justification is "national security"; as soon as the state assumes the power to make the determination that any form of speech, any topic, is too dangerous to be freely discussed in public, it will sooner or later abuse that power for it's own well being. George Bush was just opting to err on the side of caution when he advocated the restrictions on free speech, but others will eventually abuse the power (I note Obama has made no moves to rescind any government power in this area; he's probably much more dangerous in this regard than Bush ever dreamed of being). BTW, it's not the business of Europeans who we elect; if we wanted their opinions, we would have enfranchised them. We don't interfere in their elections, why should they in ours?

When government says some speech is not good for us, and has the technology to enforce it's will, free speech does not exist, no matter what the First Amendment says.

 

So why is it your business who gets into the EEC over here? Turkey for example...both this and last administration pushing us to let em in...None of your business either...keep out of our politics...See DA ...its easy.