31 ms·
Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
- mmariani 14y agoI'd better say this while I still can. Government is broken.
- smutticus 14y agoThe author fails to mention that different countries in the west have vastly different free speech laws. He then goes on to use examples from multiple countries to prove his 4 main points. Am I expected to believe that the UK and the USA have the same free speech laws? UK libel law, which he doesn't even bring up, is regularly used to restrict free speech. German laws against denying the holocaust, which he never brings up, restrict free speech. I fail to see this imminent common threat facing western free speech through his omissions and forced equating of examples from multiple jurisdictions.
- snogglethorpe 14y agoIs this stuff actually anything new? It seems like free-speech has been under constant assault as long as such rights have been recognized. The precise details shift around a bit, but free speech has always been something that has to be actively maintained: formal guarantees aren't—and I think have never been—sufficient. I don't think there's ever been a time when you could just sit back and enjoy it... [The reason I ask is because the article seems to written to give the impression that is some sort of worrying new development...]
- lukifer 14y agoThese assaults are absolutely not new, but from my limited vantage point, previous assaults have mostly revolved around vulgarity. The new wave seems to revolve around "hate", which is worrisome given how subjective and slippery the term is. The described tale of "Zombie Muhammed" is a perfect example: a light-hearted joke to one person is a vicious act of "hate" to another. Protecting people's feelings should not be the role of the state.
- _delirium 14y agoI don't think that category is that new either, though it's hard to say if it's increasing in frequency. One very traditional category is desecration of cherished symbols: blasphemy laws are one very old example (still extant in some of Europe), and the U.S. has had recurring debates over whether flag burning should be outlawed, which it actually was for a time (basically the patriotic American's version of calling for Koran-burning to be outlawed). I do think it's true that, at least since the 1960s or so, the U.S. has supported a basically unlimited range of political opinion (excluding the flag-burning issue). Perhaps something of a historical anomaly, though, since even in the U.S. that was generally not true earlier: between various sedition acts, laws suppressing communist and anarchist publications, laws suppressing anti-segregationist speech, etc., there have been significant restrictions on "fringe" speech through much of US history.
- yew 14y agoI'm always amused by the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, mostly because most of the people who use it don't seem to know that it originated as an analogy justifying the prosecution of protesting the draft during World War I. War protests obvious aren't of any real value, after all. They just endanger the public . . .
- jamesaguilar 14y agoAn analogy doesn't automatically become bad just because it was once used to support a bad policy. :)
- yew 14y agoIt does become suspect if the underlying logic is the same, though. I might call "clear and present danger" ethically problematic, but it was hardly unjustified.
- jamesaguilar 14y agoNot really. I could say that talking about kittens is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument is not diminished because I did a bad job of lining up reality with the analogy. The problem comes in when people are allowed to say, X is like ..., without X actually being like that.
- yew 14y agoI doubt the general public and the Supreme Court would accept your logic for a span of almost fifty years, whereas they don't seem to have had much of a problem with Justice Holmes'. I think that tells us quite a lot about how human psychology tends to work in these cases, though your opinion may differ. I suspect time will tell which of us is the more accurate, though I wish it wouldn't.
- jlgreco 14y agoThe Superior Orders defense did not automatically become a bad defense just because a certain unsavory bunch of people decided to use it. ...but let us be honest. It did.
- droithomme 14y ago> The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. This is very incorrect to say it is misconstrued. In Schenck vs US, the Court was prosecuting a pacifist who distributed pamphlets protesting the involuntary draft in World War I, arguing that forced drafts constituted involuntary servitude and were therefore prohibited by the constitution. The decision was an extremely bad one and the passage by Holmes was inflammatory rhetoric since the case was clearly never about shouting fire in a theatre, it was about peacefully and reasonably protesting unconstitutional action by the government. The clear and present danger test was eliminated in 1969 when the Court established instead a "imminent lawless action" test as the line that speech must cross. Again though, interpretation of what speech will lead to "imminent lawless action" is not defined so this is a poor test as well. Clearly in some cases peaceful criticism of violent religious practices, as well as harmless cartoons that are not even disparaging have lead to imminent lawless action. A more reasonable view would be to note that those who engage in lawless action should be responsible for their own actions, regardless of whatever speech or opinions they claim made them engage in criminal behavior. No one makes you engage in criminality. It is something you choose to do.
- philwelch 14y ago> The decision was an extremely bad one and the passage by Holmes was inflammatory rhetoric since the case was clearly never about shouting fire in a theatre, it was about peacefully and reasonably protesting unconstitutional action by the government. It's an interesting theory that the thirteenth amendment prohibits conscription, but it's never been upheld in court.
- javajosh 14y agoWhy can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work. And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one. There is a terrible slippery slope here, not only in encouraging islamists to demand more from us (what's next? threatening farmers who sell pork?) but also to send a message to other put-upon groups that they can demand the same thing - if they want it badly enough. Yes, I wish that people would grow a spine and stop worrying about getting killed for hurting someone's feelings. But when I wonder whether I'd be willing to take that risk, the answer is no.
- gbog 14y agoI see what you mean but I have the opposite feeling: the thing about Islam and all is just a minor part of the self-censorship and new taboos problem in the West, and this article should not focus only on that.
- milfot 14y agoQuick question, do you actually think it is the 'militant' or the 'islam' that scares the west? And once you figure out the (right) answer to that question, please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'. The real lesson here is what better way to mobilise a generation of a nation into militancy than occupy their country, sell off their assets, kill 5% of the population and then insult their religion.
- spindritf 14y ago> please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'. No need to rewrite anything, it's both their hostility and philosophical differences that scare us. Overcoming that fear and reaffirming our values is the basis for one of the most important texts in the European culture — The Song of Roland. EDIT: I do know what you mean and I'm sorry but those are just feel-good platitudes. West quite obviously is not afraid of militant Christians or atheists. Mostly because there aren't really any left, and those who still hang around don't regularly erupt in violence, but also because they're much more like us and it's easier for us to understand their particular extremism.
- dhughes 14y agoWhat I find chilling is in the age of the internet the comment sections on news sites are heavily censored (e.g. CBC). Which seems to allow a strange mix of viewpoints but what you don't see is what worries me. As for insulting religions it's funny that most times it's religion against religion more than non-religious again religious.
- indiecore 14y agothe CBC comments section is heavily censored? Looking at it I didn't think they even had moderators.
- dhughes 14y agoThey have "trusted users" who get a star beside their name, for some weird reason you can't use arrow keys to backspace you can use backspace, plus it takes a good minute for comments to load, comments seem to work in IE browser only. I know people who have tried to make a general comment and are denied but others who make far harsher statements seem to always get them posted. It seems not so much censoring as some weird agenda, it's bizarre. A lot of times commenting is restricted which is too bad since I like to see what people think of stories; pro or con.
- guylhem 14y agoMost of the european news website are also censored, by law. Moderators are paid to remove comments, or whole threads. Some words are banned. The purge is even worse that at CBC. As you said, the real problem is you can't really guess what people think, or how many share a viewpoint, unless you have a bot fetching the page and watching the disappearing posts. And that worries me too. At least on HN you can see hellbanned with showdead (hello josephcooney! you may find this discussion amusing, I find it at least better than european style censorship)
- ommunist 14y agoThe BBC is heavily censoring comments in the news. Victims of UK killers in Afghanistan have no voice there.
- josephcooney 14y agoAs someone who is hell-banned on HN, I find this discussion of freedom-of-speech amusing.
- capex 14y ago"It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance" Sounds like a self defeating argument.
- cup 14y agoThis is really interesting in light of the recent reddit fiasco involving violentacrez and voyeuristic photos being published. I mean people were clearly up in arms about the invasion of privacy and supported subreddits like creepshots being banned despite the fact that they're perfectly legal. I wonder whether these same people see the similiarity between themselves and Muslims who want the blasphemous publication of prophets banned.
- JeremyBanks 14y agoThe analogy only holds if you expect Reddit to behave like an open/libre platform. As a private organization, they have no obligation to do so. They have very strong motivations to crack down on activity that reflects badly on them (as these recents events threatened to), yet they do permit much more than many organizations would. By contrast, the government is supposed to have free speech as one of their fundamental legal principles. It's a poor argument to suggest that people advocating censorship on Reddit are very similar to those advocating censorship in society at large.
- clavalle 14y agoI don't think it is a weak argument at all. Sure Reddit is a private organization but being so makes it a softer target for censorship advocates. They can try different techniques and arguments in that sandbox and get an amplified, but not dissimilar, return on their actions. It can also serve as a morale booster for those groups. As they hone their message and techniques against a large, democratic, and heterogeneous population, they can use those same tactics in society at large to provoke the same change in more inertial government.
- illuminate 14y agoMisogynistic communities are not at all the same thing as a community hostile to religious belief.
- linuxhansl 14y ago"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever is might be). If people would be sufficiently secure about their religious views any criticism would just be ignored and people would go on about their business. (Well, the truth is that people are angry to begin with, and religion is just a nice excuse to vent this anger). The other part that baffles me are "hate crimes". That word makes no sense. What the heck is a "hate crime"? Are there violent non-hate crimes?
- RobAtticus 14y agoDo you think that all murders happen because the murderer hates the victim? I think it's very possible for their to be violent non-hate crimes (e.g., murder for hire, killing witnesses to another crime, etc).
- linuxhansl 14y agoNo I don't. You are right of course. I just find the term "hate crime" a bit pointless. As if violence against a person is worse if the motive was hatred or that person is ... {pick any of: gay, black, white, atheist, catholic, protestant, American, muslim, ...}
- maxwin 14y agowell, yes. It is worse because it is usually targeted not just one individual but a category of people. Even though the person who commits hate crime (e.g beating a chinese to death because one hates chinese) to only one person, the damage goes beyond one person. All the chinese people would feel the hatred and would be angry by that. The consequences could result in very very nasty back and forth revenge,war,mass murders. We had learned these painful lessons from history.
- icebraining 14y agoHave you ever lived in fear? For your sake or your family? Your children? A crime directed at someone just because they are members of a certain minority causes every other member to feel like a potential target. I think it makes perfect sense for it to be punished more harshly; the damage is much greater. This doesn't mean I support criminalizing hate speech, by the way. Just harder punishment for existing crimes.
- guylhem 14y agoHistory is interesting sometimes. As Chamberlain and Dalladier brilliantly showed with the Munich Agreement, it can be a good thing to appease a potential adversary which feels wronged for some reason by giving in to their demands and forgetting for a while about one's law or best interests - for a "greater cause". They did in fact avoid a war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement But since the agreement was made possible by the fear of the potential alternative outcome (failed negotiations -> risk war), which was of different significance to the opponents (one could say, with hindsight, that one of the negotiating parties wanted an opportunity to go to war), an advantage could be gained by the party with attached less significance to the bad outcome. The result was in fact positive for all the negotiators : they all got what they wanted. But the ones with an interest in a war were given the zone where the border defenses and the banks were - even if the result was positive for all, some gained more - and not just "more", but strategically more. In other words, reaching an agreement failed to consider the strategic significance of the advantage that was given away. Slippery slope? Maybe. The real problem is not just incentivizing a very destructive conduct, but it seems very similar - giving away one's best defenses in exchange of a short-lived peace. Why ? Just like a pen is mightier than a sword, free speech is the best defense of democracy. Why is no one interested in free speech? (in one of the posts: "I'd be willing to take that risk, the answer is no") It looks like a public good - one which utility is the sum of marginal utility, with individual marginal utilities not enough to offset the cost of this good. That's bad. But there's something to learn - any group that can manage to make its adversary give them their best defense is applying a good strategy - so threatening violence works, while giving in to the demand of bullies with diverging interest doesn't. (Please do not interpret this post as an endorsement of any party, faith, or country - the strategy here is just very interesting)
- camus 14y agoExcept free speech only exists in US, doesnt exist in any Europe country for instance. In US you can say almost anything you want about anything. Not the case in Uk or France. If you deny holocaust in France for instance , you're going to be prosecuted. So while the article is interesting it only applies to USA.
- slowpoke 14y agoIt's a bit stretched to assert that European countries don't have Free Speech. Germany, for instance, grants Freedom of Expression in its "Grundgesetz" (its fundamental law), and states that "there is no censorship", though there may be exceptions as defined by the law. For example, it's illegal in Germany to slander or insult someone, or to deny the Holocaust. I don't agree especially with the latter. It's ridiculous to assert the Holocaust didn't happen - I've visited the remains of the Dachau Concentration Camp, and I won't ever forget that place in my life - but it's equally ridiculous to disallow questioning it. I just pity the people who do it. But again, it's not exactly right to say that Free Speech doesn't exist here in Europe. I'd say it's mostly the same situation as in the US - it's under attack and we, as the united inhabitants of this planet, need to stand up and fight back where-ever possible. Stop thinking in countries. Start thinking as a part of humanity as a whole.
- mcantelon 14y agoThe "Muslim Menace" us being used as an excuse to attack free speech just like child porn has been used to attack privacy. News at 11.
- bhangi 14y agoI feel compelled to point out that most of the examples in the article are free speech that happens to (gratuitously in most cases) piss off the minorities. Notable for their absence are transgressions against authorities -- e.g. the sort of vicious recriminations against whistleblowers whose free speech rights are for naught when they hurt the powers that be. Assange nailed it -- free speech is tolerated only so long as it does not interfere with the interests of the power structure. The moment it does, it will be swiftly dealt with -- under one guise or the other. Somewhat disappointed in this piece from Turley, who's otherwise quite nuanced.
- strictfp 14y agoThe problem is not rooted in governments. It is rooted in the Fatwa culture, which streches across national borders. Many goverments try to protect targeted people, with limited success and high consequences for the target individual. I find it offending that we let ourselves be supressed like this. But it is a sort of terrorist scare tactic which we sadly seem to be very vulnerable to.
- duedl0r 14y agothis would be true if "western world" == USA. But it isn't. It's a subset of it, and certainly not true for all the western countries.
- ommunist 14y agoYou mean Sweden has free speech? Or Norway? I doubt you can have free speech even in Liechtenstein. You can only express yourself "freely" until you are not touching the real chaps with real interests. Look at Assange's story.
- mhartl 14y agoI hereby propose that the term "hate speech" be written as one word: hatespeech. It's Newspeak, and we should spell it as such.
- Evbn 14y agoLike email for e-mail?
- ommunist 14y agoWhat the author forgot to say is that censorship in mainstream media is not a cage. Its a skeleton.
- poli_throwaway 14y agoThe examples in the piece seem to me to be so colored so as to confuse the whole issue. Actual limiting of rights occurs due to a power structure. The right to offend an unpopular minority or foreign group is usually easy to exercise and it doesn't take much guts to defend it. Rights are usually curtailed by the powers that be. The article seems to imply that a monolithic "Western World" has been a fountain head of free expression until the problematic Muslims and a few left-liberals came along. So Jews in the last few centuries, or blacks during Jim Crow had wonderful free expression rights that an un-sullied European civilization had always cherished? Fast forwarding to this time, quite a few people are in jail within the Western world for espousing extremely un-popular political views.
- netcan 14y agoThere is another aspect to this. A ban on blasphemy, in a wide sense of the world is very natural to us. We are used to living under these restrictions. They are imposed by religion, law & taboo/culture almost everywhere including the west. The blatant simple versions are religious laws often absorbed into law about denying the truth of a religion, worshiping other gods, etc. There are often also similar restrictions on criticism/denial of monarchs. When these get stronger and more elaborate, we tend to call these "State Religions" (eg north korea) hinting at how closely we associate religions with blasphemy/heresy laws. A more modern "light" varient has cultural pressures at the core. It is considered bad form almost everywhere to openly criticize someone's "beliefs." Beliefs must be mutually respected. They cannot be held against someone. They are treated as a part of one's ethnicity. As far as I can tell this has two sources. The original religious law one (Dawkins has fascinating memetic explanation for this) and a sort of cultural compromise reached enough times following religious wars that it has become deeply ingrained in cultures. We are predisposed to respecting blasphemy and heresy laws.
- bobsy 14y agoWhat concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases. In Britain 2 police officers were killed. The same day a guy wrote on his t-shirt something to the effect of "kill pigs for fun hahahaah." This is a stupid thing to do. I would have thought the police might confiscate his t-shirt. Nope, that wouldn't have been sufficient. He got 4 months in prison. After any major crime you hear that someone has been arrested because they have set up a fan page or wrote some stupid comments online praising the person who did it. I would have thought Facebook moderation would be sufficient. Most recently.. a girl went missing. Some muppet on Facebook wrote how he "woke up" next to her. Not all of his comments were posted but these appear to be on his Facebook wall. He wasn't trolling the family or abusing memorial pages. He is now spending 3 months in prison... You then have the frustrated traveler who said he would blow an air port "sky high". He was arrested, found guilty and fined. It took a year or two to finally win an appeal. I am not defending these people. They have done stupid things. Some should be warned by police. However, there appears to be a crackdown going on quietly if you cause even the slightest offense. As a citizen of a western country this worries my greatly.
- nicholassmith 14y agoI agree, there's been a significant rise in cases being prosecuted over stupid, hurtful comments. They're often trolls, or parroting sickipedia, but that's no reason to arrest them, not even a little bit.
- aes256 14y agoIn addition to the cases you mention, in the past month alone we have also had a man given a community sentence for posting that British soldiers in Afghanistan "should die and go to hell", and a man arrested for creating a Facebook group praising the alleged killer of the two police officers in Greater Manchester. These all come under the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits any "message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" It's stupid puritanistic legislation and it needs to be repealed.
- meaty 14y ago
- ommunist 14y agoI think it is not real limitation per se. OK, there are real limitations, like the BBC censorship of comments on their website (they call it moderation). But mostly it is orwellian double-thinking occupying the mind of the average Westerner. Examples? Even after this photo - http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00065/mhli/0065MH0055000002R0_DXXX.jpg http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00065/mhli/0065... a rare Westerner will allow himself to think there is no rover on Mars. It is self-censorship at almost pre-conscious level what horrifies me in the Western world.
- nnq 14y ago..."zombie Muhammed"! ...I REALLY wanna see a photo of that, so if anyone has it PLEASE post it anywhere online! (though, to be fair, resurrection was Jesus' thing, so he would go better with the zombie thing, and maybe the costumed guy got what he deserved for mixing things up...)
- nnq 14y ago...found it actually (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xULoUXkBia0/T0_8AxXVVGI/AAAAAAAACH0/iYX7EBsIrqQ/s1600/mohammad-zombie.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xULoUXkBia0/T0_8AxXVVGI/AAAAAAAACH...) ...though still, he should've really changed the headwear and colors and made it a Jesus zombie :P
- guard-of-terra 14y agoIn any war between the religious man and the atheist, support the atheist.
- ommunist 14y agoMeans, you will support war. My suggestion - pacify both.
- mylittlepony 14y agoEveryone should chill out and have a beer by the beach. Unless you are in the US, where that's illegal.
- Hannan 14y agoThis varies considerably. I can assure you as a USian that I regularly chill out and have a beer by the beach. :) Though we do also have "family friendly" beaches where you can only have alcohol in areas around the beach, not on the beach itself.
- tomjen3 14y agoThat would be nice, but the atheist would die. Part of the reason atheists give a shit about what religious idiots say is that not too long ago they were burning us at the stake.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- beaker52 14y agoThe solution is quite simple to achieve individually, but near impossible to get everyone to achieve at once. Stop being insulted. Stop being offended. Let things go. Life is too short for it. If you're not offended, it doesn't matter what people say. Then we can all say what we like and no-one has to worry.
- randomchars 14y agoThis. Unfortunately most of the people who are outraged are not easy to reason with, so this doesn't work.
- ominds 14y agoMany sites speak against Islam and its prophet, many of them speak against the Koran and its teachings. No demonstrations have gone all out against them. They hold a POV that is not acceptable to Muslims, but that's fine. Many of them even attempt to do research about the topic they talk about to prove their POVs. The question is, would you consider someone who creates a film portraying Jesus or Mohammad as a child molester or as a fraud as someone practicing free speech? I think there is quite a difference between the two.
- randomchars 14y agoI would.
- tomjen3 14y agoWith no hesitation, yes. And I would expect everybody else to do the same.
- DanielBMarkham 14y ago99.99% of disgusting hateful speech is just that: disgusting hateful speech. The other .01% is the only hope we have as a species of honestly addressing our situation and problems and adapting and moving forward. The mob cannot tell the difference between these two groups. In fact, unless you are from the future looking back, nobody can. People who change society for the better through their speech are almost universally hated. At first. This isn't a nice-to-have feature of modern life. This is critical stuff. To see Ban Ki-moon say “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”? A little bit of us all die. We as a secular free society must protect people humiliating others, their beliefs and values, through speech. It's the price we paid to get to where we are -- thousands of unpopular folks yelling in the wilderness about how we are stupid, wrong, immoral and how we should improve ourselves. It's much to steep of a price, too much depends on it, for us to abandon it now.
- nickpinkston 14y agoThis a thousand times over! Though I do support their right to express such anti-free speech material, it's some weird kinda strange loop they've got going there...
- coffeedrinker 14y agoOnce blasphemous speech is outlawed, every religious group will have a new tool to use against any criticism. There are a lot of Christians in America, and for the most part they don't complain against negative speech against their religious ideas. Imagine if they could prosecute every time the name of Jesus or Christ was used as a curse word. We need free speech.
- aristidb 14y agoPublicly, that is. In a private forum like Hacker News, exclusion of disgusting hateful speech is legitimate and even necessary for the survival of the community - or people would leave because the "trolls" have taken over.
- illuminate 14y ago
- Tycho 14y agoOf course it is. The political systems of the West lack integrity: they're not going to uphold general principles in the face of emotionally charged specifics. They merely react on a pragmatic basis depending on how various rights groups and media commentators and public opinions change. Btw, an easy way to overcome these sorts of laws would be if everyone just started posting the supposedly forbidden statement on twitter (and elsewhere). They only have the resources to suppress a few disparate voices.
- netfire 14y agoWe should be careful to not limit other rights in protecting the right of free speech. I defend the right of people to express their opinions, views, thoughts, etc in society, but I also believe you must have balance and allow people to choose whether they want to listen to someone's opinion or thoughts. It is one thing to go listen to someone from the KKK speak about their thoughts or to read their opinions in a pamphlet or book (this type of free speech I support), it is another to force the public to be exposed to their hateful messaging by forcing billboard/television companies to allow their messaging be shown in a public place. We should support the rights of companies or individuals to censor content they don't agree with or want to be affiliated with. Government should (at least in some cases) be able to limit certain types of speech where the public would be forced to see something they don't want themselves (or their children) to be subjected to. Government should be less involved with censoring types of speech that someone chooses to be exposed to. What are your thoughts? How do we find the right balance with free speech and other rights?
- tomjen3 14y agoThe problem with the second part of your argument is that you force me to pay, through my taxes, to a subway and then prevent me from posting things I want to say (but allow the other guy, because all he wants to do is sell soap). By obviously you should have the right to not listen to a particular radio or tv show or not to look at a particular billboard. And yes, Fox News shouldn't have to argue points they don't want to. But protecting you from seeing something you don't want to see? I don't want to see niggers, should the government lock them up?
- netfire 14y agoI would prefer that the government not sell ad space at all. (The reason a subway should be built is to transport people from one place to another, that's what you are paying taxes for). The main point I was trying to make is that we should consider other rights when defending free speech (or other rights, including not being exposed to things you don't want yourselves, or your children to be exposed to). Defending almost any right to an absolute extreme produces consequences that are harmful to individuals and society (as your example illustrates).
- tokenadult 14y agoGiven the set of tradeoffs described in the article, I'm on record supporting free speech, period. As I wrote earlier here on HN, "The basic issue is whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any subject, or whether any American or Dutch or Danish person or other person accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions. The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind. "Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize Transportation Security Agency 'security theater' as a meaningless reduction in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing, but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs." As before, I think jerf correctly responded to this issue when he made his comment on it last month: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510637 If I organize a riot involving thousands of people that I manage to incite into killing people, and I claim my reason is that I heard that some guy is Glasgow made fun of the American soccer team over beer... that guy is Glasgow is not the real reason. It doesn't even qualify as a metaphorical fig leaf, it's just a lie. When the excuse is this tiny, you shouldn't even give it the time of day. I have to agree with the submitted article that the correct policy is making sure to protect the right of free people in free countries to speak freely about all the issues of the day, including the harm caused to the whole world by fanatics who burn and destroy and kill because their delusional beliefs are offended.
- jakubp 14y ago
- tomjen3 14y ago>I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" --Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation I never though I would see the day when the West gave its freedom away just to please a religious group.
- PaulHoule 14y agoWell, I'd say that one of the reasons why muslims get along so well in in the U.S. is we have separation of church and state (which plays into free speech) Christians can't use the state in the U.S. to harass agnostics, athiests, pagans, jews, muslims, buddists, whatever. If our government could stop people from spreading hateful lies about islam, we'd have Christians saying that you can't have a Koran or atheists saying that it's blasphemy to even say there is a God. You can't say our American Way is the best of all possible worlds, but you can say that it's the least worst.
- mad44 14y agoHere, another perspective (from the muslim world) on free speech. Appeared in Foreign Policy magazine. Makes good points. http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/18/globalization_and_its_discontents http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/18/globalizat...
- danielweber 14y agoPoint of order: Nakoula, the filmmaker, was arrested for parole violations. His previous crimes included using fraud and multiple identities to raise money over the Internet, so it's not unreasonable that he should be arrested when he's released a video on the Internet under an alias and asking for money to continue his work.
- janeesah 14y agoThe thing is, violence is not the correct response to hateful or derogatory speech. It's much more effective to use positive actions to prove the speech wrong; people don't respond well to losing verbal arguments, but no one can argue with results from positive actions.
- tryitnow 14y agoThis article displays a rather poor understanding of free speech. First, it sets up a false dichotomy between an idealized "free speech" past and a present where free speech is in danger. Where's the evidence for this? The US has always had an uneasy relationship with "free speech." I don't believe that the First Amendment was ever interpreted as liberally as this author seems to think. Any article talking about free speech's decline in the US should refer to the two key Supreme Court cases: Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. Seriously, it takes like less than 5 minutes to look these up on wikipedia and you can already see that the First Amendment has always been interpreted pretty conservatively. Facts are our friends, I wish this author would have provided some citations and historical context. As for countries other than the US? Are you kidding me? Europe has always had restrictions even on political speech. There's no limiting of free speech that is new here. Sure the author cites some "new" laws but these laws reflect the spirit of the old laws. No news here people. Now I'll address the author's subcategories where he believe free speech is being eroded: Blasphemy: This is the only area in the article where the author has a bit of a point. The presence of relatively large populations willing to riot over perceived insults to their religion (i.e. Muslims) is sort of new in Western Europe and leaders are figuring out how to deal with it. However, I don't see anybody rushing out to ban the Satanic Verses. Most leaders are concerned about people doing silly things like dressing up as zombie Muhammed in public. A key criterion here is the possibility of inciting public violence. Rarely do works of literary or artistic merit have this effect, so restrictions are mostly directed towards people doing insulting things in public. Think of going into a bar and insulting the biggest, dumbest looking guy there. Yes, you should have the right to do that, but ask any prosecutor how much sympathy a judge is going to have for your case. There's nothing new here. Personally, I wish our laws allowed more expressions of insulting speech. I actually agree with the author on that point - but the author undermines his case by pretending that we're somehow backsliding. We're not, this has always been the standard. BTW, I write this as an atheist who plenty of Muslims would love to see butchered. However, we need to remember that much of the censorship going on around this issue is self-censorship. The state censorship he cites is really nothing new - in France it's just an extension of how they deal with Nazis and others. I disagree with French laws on this, but again, there's nothing new here. The author is being alarmist. Hate crimes The reason for hate crime laws is that a hate crime is more than just a crime between two people. It's something that has the potential to incite group versus group violence. There's a qualitative difference in an act that's meant to intimidate a a single individual and one meant to intimidate a specific group. When acts directed specifically at a group are committed everyone in that group feels a bit of the effect of the act, hence the punishment should be greater. Additionally, there are some hate criminals who don't mind getting punished just for committing an act against an individual because their real goal is intimidating an entire group. Speech is discriminatory Ummm, discrimination on the basis of suspect and quasi-suspect categories has been illegal in many circumstances for some time now. Putting up a sign that says "Coloreds not welcome" at your establishment is pretty much illegal and has been even though it's a restriction on "speech." This is based on the fact that you're operating a public establishment and therefore derive gains from being part of the broader society. With those gains come responsibilities. If you and your buddies don't want to hang around blacks when you BBQ in your backyard you're still free to discriminate because you're not running a public establishment in that context. The example cited in the article comes from a comedy club, a public establishment. Again, nothing new here. Speech is Deceitful If you lie and get a benefit from it, then yes, you should be prosecuted. I don't know why the author views this as a problem. The example he cites from France is not an outlier in French history - it's an extension of France's rather stringent anti-hate laws. Laws I disagree with just like the author does, but again, there's nothing new here. One of the reasons I really don't like this article is because I kind of agree with the author around loosening free speech standards, but he just does an awful and alarmist job of conveying his point. He is bound to turn off anyone who has any grasp of the history and nuance around the subject. I feel like a cause I support has been set back by this author's very poor argumentation skills. This article reminds us that opinion column writers were the original trolls long before the Internet ever existed. tl:dr: The author does not provide any convincing evidence that the "West is limiting Free Speech" in any new way.
- niels_olson 14y agoThis article reads like the middle of a European history textbook: > such as Ireland, which in <year> criminalized the “publication or utterance of blasphemous matter” deemed “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.” The Russian Duma ... proposed a law against “insulting religious beliefs.” Other countries allow the arrest of people who threaten strife by criticizing religions or religious leaders. In Britain, for instance, a 15-year-old girl was arrested two years <before> for burning a Koran.