The American Way
Barack Obama aside, nothing makes me feel patriotic quite like a good European hate speech prosecution:
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.
Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
“In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line,” the court in Amsterdam said.
Wilders is a boor and a bit of an idiot, but while I understand that this sort of thing happens on the continent it invariably strikes me as incredibly stupid. This isn’t going to end anti-Muslim sentiment in the Netherlands, and it’s not going to help Dutch Muslims assimilate into European society. What’s more, this actually fuels the notion that the existence of a substantial Muslim population in your country is an intolerable threat to liberty. There are a lot of dimensions of social policy along which I think we can learn a lot from northern Europe, but the robust tradition of free speech in the United States is something we can and should be very proud of.
98 Responses to “The American Way”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It seems to me that hate speech prosecution is something that might be neccesary under MattY’s precious parliamentary system of government. The fewer checks and balances you have on government action, the more closely you have to police your political culture.
Mike
January 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Without taking a position on this post, I would just note that American law imposes all kinds of restrictions on various forms of speech. To be sure, these restrictions are different from the ones used in Europe, but I think a case can be made that these bascially reflect differences in line-drawing.
Oh, and cue the troll parade warning about “dhimmitude” in 3, 2,1…..
January 21st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
This is the most idiotic post I’ve read in awhile.
What do you think the whole busing debacle was all about? Or just the whole notion of it being illegal to pick on a minority? Of course you’re taking away their rights! And they know it and are infuriated by it! However, it is a right that people decided that they shouldn’t have, for the safety of all. Arguments about entrenching conflict that are like this, are typically specious.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Free speech is great but the concept has been interpreted too broadly in the US when it comes to political campaigns. That is why you have a one-billion dollar presidential race and congressmen spending half of their time raising money.
Banning those PAC ads close to the election, and capping how much candidates can spend, would be a start to reduce the influence of lobbies. But we can’t do that because of “free speech”.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Arguments about entrenching conflict that are like this, are typically specious.
I hereby award the above sentence the All-Time Prize for Complete Incomprehensibility, Indefinite Pronoun Reference Sub-Category. Runners-up include the commenter’s previous three sentences.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I agree with Shah8. The people should decide through their democratically elected officials what rights individuals should have. If the people decide that abortion should be illegal, hate speech should be illegal, flag burning should be illegal, restrictions on federal power contained in the Constitution should no longer exist, or that gay people should not be allowed to marry, then there is no basis for denying the will of the people.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:44 pm
There are a lot of dimensions of social policy along which I think we can learn a lot from northern Europe, but the robust tradition of free speech in the United States is something we can and should be very proud of.
Good to see Matt is allowed to say good things about the US now that Bush is no longer in office.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I think this reaction to hate speech is illustrative of the strange Dutch attitude toward communication. For example, their approach to studying argument and deliberation is to construct and apply stringent rules in order to secure transparent and non-manipulative discourse in carefully monitored forums (incidentally, these sorts of models only work well if you presume that all speakers voices are given equal weight and consideration–that all have equal power). Americans like myself tend to respond to Dutch pragma-dialectics with a bit of bemusement–that the work is interesting to think about, but that their ideal speech act looks like nothing we have ever encountered in our daily lives, and it most certainly looks nothing like an open forum.
The upshot is that both of these examples show a lack of confidence in the ability for members of society to make sophisticated judgments without rules or guarantees. In other words, the Dutch attempt to make a speech and deliberation encourage greater social cohesion sort of falls apart at the point where they focus all of their energy–to the point of obsession–on preventing communication in bad faith, whereas a more open society embraces the freedom of speech, which must be founded on a presumption of good faith.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The people should decide through their democratically elected officials what rights individuals should have.
Er, no, they shouldn’t. It is precisely to prevent this sort of thing that the Founders put robust minority protections into the Constitution, and why certain rights are considered “inalienable,” because in a well-functioning democracy it is as important to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority as it is to ensure that the minority prevails. A democracy must balance those competing interests, and if it doesn’t, then it enables the majority to persecute and oppress a disfavored minority (as, for example, Jim Crow laws and the disenfranchisement of blacks in the South).
January 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Absolutely. The Dutch Way isn’t the most hideous infringement upon human freedom that I could imagine, but it’s most certainly not our way, and I like our way better.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:54 pm
1) I think the European Union has a Declaration of the Rights of Man that protects free speech. Just as obviously, it wipes its ass on that Declaration whenever it’s politically expedient.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
The real question: Does Geert Wilders dye his hair? If so, Off with His Head!
January 21st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Banning those PAC ads close to the election, and capping how much candidates can spend, would be a start to reduce the influence of lobbies. But we can’t do that because of “free speech”.
Thank God (or, rather, thank Madison). Actually, I’d gladly side with the above commenter if only bad lobbies (NRA, AIPAC, Chamber of Commerce, CPAC) are banned, and the good ones (Sierra Club, AARP, Move on, AFL-CIO) are allowed to pitch their ideas to voters.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Hey! Turns out he does dye his hair and is completely open about it, as in this interview (google “geert wilders hair”).
Great judgment, that guy.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
After letting one rip in the elevator, Geert Wilders decided the best course of action was to hold his breath and pretend that nothing had happened.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Jasper:
You don’t really “get” this free speech thing, do you?
(Unless the comment was a parody, in which case my apologies.)
January 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Er, no, they shouldn’t. It is precisely to prevent this sort of thing that the Founders put robust minority protections into the Constitution…
Er, Stefan, methinks you failed to note the strong element of sarcasm in comment #6.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:13 pm
You don’t really “get” this free speech thing, do you?
No, I totally get it. Only lobbies I agree with should be allowed unfettered free speech.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I agree with the old prospecter in Blazing Saddles
January 21st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I think it’s better to have a culture which frowns on hate speech (I suppose you could call it a tradition of political correctness) than laws which prohibit it. That said, there is a place for laws to deal with the most extreme hate speech – it’s just wrong to incite violence, for example.
I suspect that the problem in Europe is that officialdom remembers the horrors of WWII and responds with laws, but everyday people mostly live in a monoculture so its not part of the culture. In North America, we don’t have the same official guilt about WWII but multiculturalism is a part of everyday life for most. (It’s no coincidence that the most homogeneous parts of the continent are the least tolerant.)
January 21st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
You don’t really “get” this free speech thing, do you?
So you also think that “free speech” means “right for lobbies and industries to openly corrupt politicians every election”? That is what is wrong with throwing a term like “free speech” around and claiming it is absolute to justify pretty much anything, while in reality free speech is already limited.
What is unique about free speech in America is that defamation law is very strict here, and it is much more difficult to sue someone for libel (not to mention “hate speech”). That is the part that I like.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Free speech is not synonymous with libel. Libel is indictable in Commonwealth countries (that means Britain, folks), who share a common legal system with the States.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I’m not really sure about that Matt. Just like during prohibition alcohol consumption really did go down quite a bit I’m sure banning hate speech does have a strong impact on discourse.
That said, speech should be free because it’s right! In fact, we should have a law that makes it illegal to advocate against free speech!
January 21st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I think it’s important to keep in mind two things:
1. Europe has actually experienced fascist governments–in Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and Serbia (and I may be forgetting some)–whereas North Americans haven’t. The link between hate speech and physical violence is not an abstraction for them as it is for us. It may not make sense here, but doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense there.
2. Most European societies are different from North America in one very important respect: they exhibit much higher degrees of ethnic homogeneity. They are not immigrant nations, and they don’t have the same built-in cultural reflexes when faced with ethnic, religious and racial differences as the US and Canada do. Their sense of identity is based not on diversity but on same-ness. To me, it’s plausible, prima facie, that the risk of persecution is much higher there than it is here.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
#22 is on the right track, it’s completely senseless to criticize the European approach to free speech as “stupid” without considering the social and historical context in which it exists. The fact that Nazi insignia etc. are banned in Germany is also an infringement on free speech – I very much doubt Matt would deem it stupid or unreasonable.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
@nd
I would consider it stupid and unreasonable. Free speech is supposed to be a hallmark of modern society, downsides and all.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Will you guys quit with the Europe generalizations? There are many European nations where Wilders film is perfectly legal.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
The fact that Nazi insignia etc. are banned in Germany is also an infringement on free speech – I very much doubt Matt would deem it stupid or unreasonable.
Don’t know about Matt, but count me in as a vote for “stupid and unreasonable.” I suspect that deploying a swastika earns you mostly contempt in Germany. So why ban it? (Setting aside instances where it might be used specifically to intimidate people, i.e., like a burning cross might be here.) Is there really the threat that the Nazis are going to make a comeback? If so, then Germany has a lot bigger problem than banning swastikas is going to fix. But I rather think that’s a pretty far-fetched scenario.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
MY got this one right although I am confused on the line “fuels the notion that the existence of a substantial Muslim population in your country is an intolerable threat to liberty”. Not sure if he agrees or not.
I would recommend watching Fitna and passing your own judgement on whether it is hate speech or not.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Maybe I wasn’t making myself clear. My point wasn’t to say whether those restrictions on free speech are reasonable or not ,or to find out what you thought of them personally. I was merely trying to point out that they cannot be understood without taking into account the socio-historic context of continental Europe.
I brought up the German example because it’s an easy and obvious one. Clearly, a ban on Nazi insignia in, I dunno, India, might be a less justifiable restriction.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The ex-confederacy governments during the late Victorian and Edwardian periods were police states, if not quite fascist, Erik. Those states certainly terrorised any dissenting whites as well as the ex-slaves. Thus, North Americans have had experience with violent government.
Also, Europe has never been as homogenous as people make it out to be. We tend to think of diversity in terms of the differential of differences. The US has always had fairly radical differentials in appearances and cultures, and that tends to weigh the debates and comparisons with Europe. Even so, Polish people in England does count as diversity, as well as English people in Spain, or Gypsies in much of Europe. Some groups becomes homogenized into French people, even folks from Brittany and folks from Nice. France has a person descended from Hungarian Jews as the top political officer. Scandinavia has traditionally been nondiverse, but that was mostly a function of how hard it was to get there. It’s changing now.
What the debate is about now is that instead of the traditional protestant/catholic, jews, romany…Europe is talking about much browner kind of people. Turks in Germany, North Africans in Spain, East Africans in Italy and Sweden drive most of the really vicious talk. Belgium may have some of the old fashioned stuff splitting it up, but it was always kind of a helpless, retro country trying to reconcile with it’s own history. In the rest of Europe, Black is the new Black.
Yup, I am terrible at grammar, especially when I’m trying to dash off something. My English teachers have always dispaired of ever getting me to properly handle pronoun agreements. My argument is still standing:
Matt Yglesias treats the absurd idea that we have to be concerned about the activities of racist and reactionary people when considering basic ideas about civil rights as sound.
From Cluetown to Matt:
The rights that people will *always* fight hardest for, are the rights to hurt other people. It might sound so desperately cynical to people like Matt, but it’s normal. People are natively zero sum thinkers. Security, housing, food, people will almost always treat these social and material resources in a zero-sum manner unless coerced not to.
Thus, the basis of the state, at its most core level is monopolization of violence, of the basic abilities to coerce. This is what allows the state to enforce norms against things like feuding, hoarding, and other anti-social behavior that’s rational for an individual. Naturally, many people during times of crisis will struggle against the government’s imperative as an infringement against their rights to secure personal interests. The state, in order to protect the greater good, tells them to STFU. Violent language has always been among the topics that states regulate, for good reason. That’s why we don’t allow people to advocate death to people, to shout fire in a theater, or advocate terror and property siezures against a minority. Full Stop. As in we don’t worry about whether that further fuels a racist movement. That’s for the police and internal security arraingments to work out. This is what all healthy states do.
Unless you like perpetually rioting urban areas, feudal and fueding countrysides and low tax incomes.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Another thought – if you make a short film critical of Christianity do you get prosecuted for “hate speech” in the Netherlands?
January 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
A good example in the negative:
If the economy had held up, the costs to Spain of its virulently racist crowds at arenas and other places would have gradually increased to unacceptable levels.
to the positive:
The Dutch, on the other hand, has rigorous standards of civil conduct not in the least because it’s raison de etre has always been tolerance of religious differences. Tolerance was how it became a financial and geopolitical superpower for a good while. It’s also how they consistently attracts some of the best talent compared to Denmark, say.
It’s how they eat, don’t you see? Anti-hate speech laws is a core element of how the Netherlands projects political and economic power. You really can’t expect the leadership to be sympathetic to Matt Yglesia’s point.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Does this post mean that Matthew Yglesias hates free speech principles unless they work better than speech control does at keeping him alive?
January 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Shah8 -
I see an important distinction between the American South (either pre- or post- Civil War) and the fascist states of early 20th century Europe. Fascism was a political movement that grew in times of extreme economic dislocation and preyed on the masses’ insecurity, getting them to focus their rage on a specific “outgroup” to consolidate their allegiance to the state, which spoke for “them”. The systematic persecution of Jews in Germany wasn’t a permanent feature of life, and the political system wasn’t premised on anti-semitism. In the case of the South, every feature of life (political, social, economic) revolved around slavery (or the desire to maintain blacks as a permanent underclass, i.e. Jim Crow). Hate speech directed at blacks was merely a way to justify existing inequalities, rather than a means of creating new inequalities on the basis of hatred. The fundamental dynamic at play in each situation appears different to me.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Erik…my general feeling is that you’re making a distinction without a difference.
To me, Fascism was a facet of mature industrialism. The South was pre or proto-industrialist. However, the basic ideologies and mechanisms weren’t all that different to matter in the context of this thread.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
shah8,
It is not like hateful propaganda doesn’t have real consequences in the US. Here in New York, in the last year alone two Hispanics were killed by two different groups of teens who were roaming the street specifically to beat up some brown guys. Or that dude who opened fire during a church service because the priest didn’t want to ban homosexuals from his church.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Also remember those Danish cartoons. Were they even reprinted in a major US newspaper? So it is not all black and white.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
MY does not say this is wrong on the grounds that humans has a fundamental right to free speech. He mentions principles nowhere. As far as I can tell, he speaks strictly of the lack of practicality of these laws. They don’t work My gut reaction is that this post reeks of left-wing social engineering. It seems that only with national security policy does he ever say: even though this policy might keep us safe, let’s stick with our principles and not implement it.
All other policies are judged based on how to build a perfect society. “Policy implications” is all that is important. And this post is symptomatic of that. [This prosecution/law] fuels [result MYdoesn't like], so our way is better. He never says it’s wrong. Of course, he takes the obligatory swipes at the victim of this injustice. But he never calls it an injustice, just “stupid.” This seems like a pretty scary way of reasoning.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I suppose I should have mentioned.
I don’t really think the Dutch *wants* muslim immigrants or *cares* about muslim immigrant rights. This is mostly about controlling the local KKK elements.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Shah8:
“Violent language has always been among the topics that states regulate, for good reason. That’s why we don’t allow people to advocate death to people, to shout fire in a theater, or advocate terror and property siezures against a minority.”
You are collapsing the difference between easily distinguished things. Incitement to violence has a direct correlation with violent behavior, by definition. Hate speech does not.
You might as well say that it should be illegal to depict violence as exciting and attractive in TV and movies, because this desensitizes viewers to violence and makes them more likely to be violent themselves. True or not, this simply isn’t grounds to restrict free speech in our society.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Another thought; if I protest the Israeli attack into Gaza by calling for Jihad or calling for the destruction of Israel (a UN member) which results in inflaming people to attack synagouges and trash Jewish related businesses and shoot Jews in Denmark and assault Jews all ove the continent but especially in France; is that hate speech? Or is it coool because I did it with 10,000 other of my fellow believers and we can’t all be wrong?
January 21st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“Also remember those Danish cartoons. Were they even reprinted in a major US newspaper? So it is not all black and white.”
But if they had been, the newspaper would not have been subject to legal charges. That’s the difference.
Also, I recommend Glenn Greenwald’s post on Canadian hate-speech laws.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Matt,
You are absolutely wrong.
Given the history of persecution in Germany and the Netherlands there absolutely is a need to control people who incite and encourage religious hatred. Unlike Americans Europeans are all too aware how easy it is for a society to sleepwalk into fascism. Sometimes I look at American and Israeli media and I think perhaps you need to be more vigilant than you are.
On related but slightly different note. Free speech has limits, lies and incitement against a religious minority are outside those limits and with good reason. You can’t look at regional history and come to any other conclusion.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Incitement to violence has a direct correlation with violent behavior, by definition. Hate speech does not.
That’s just not true. Look up what I wrote above. You really think groups of white teens would be harassing specifically Hispanics in the streets of New York without all that right-wing anti-immigrant propaganda?
Not that I support hate speech laws, quite the opposite. But words matter.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
But if they had been, the newspaper would not have been subject to legal charges. That’s the difference.
So in this case there were some factors much more powerful than any hate speech law that succeeded in suppressing free speech, at least in the MSM.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Sean: fair enough. In fact, I believe that Kevin Smith should have been prosecuted for making the film Dogma. It portrayed Catholics (a religious minority in the US!) as stupid, and Christian angels as murderous. It mocked the Bible and the lineage of Jesus and the Apostles, and depicted God as a woman. All of that is extremely offensive to a religious minority, and protesters told us so—but we just let it happen! It’s amazing the Republic survived, to be honest.
After all, only by strict government control on our art and discourse can we avoid “sleepwalking into fascism,” like Europe did. Perhaps we could exhibit unacceptable art and speech in some sort of “degenerate art exhibition,” so that everyone knows what not to say.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“You really think groups of white teens would be harassing specifically Hispanics in the streets of New York without all that right-wing anti-immigrant propaganda?”
If that’s the standard, anyone who publishes or sells a Bible should be liable for a Wrongful Death suit by Matthew Shepard’s family.
“So in this case there were some factors much more powerful than any hate speech law that succeeded in suppressing free speech, at least in the MSM.”
Yes. In other words, popular opinion kept them from publishing something potentially offensive. Which is how the system is supposed to work.
“Not that I support hate speech laws, quite the opposite. But words matter.”
Not to condescend, but isn’t this a conversation about hate speech laws? I know words matter, I watched the poem yesterday like everyone else. “Take out your pencils…and begin!”
January 21st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
tomemos, the Greenwald article you link to is quite reasonable on the merits. It could be used as a template for a post on the matter we are all discussing. Intead, Matt complains that the laws don’t work. Not that they are fundamentally undemocratic.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Fine, whatever, we have two different ways of looking at our systems of “free speech.” No problem. What I would like to know is..is the European way of doing things working? I mean the irony of the last ten years is that despite the hyped clash of civilizations between America and the Muslim world, America’s Muslims are for more integrated than Europe’s.
The supreme irony of all this..and I don’t make this generalization lightly…is that despite the stereotypical world view that Americans are a bunch of racist jerks, I will argue the European continent is much more racist toward its immigrants than we are. They just are able to hide it better behind flimsy charters of equality. My apologies but I stand behind this statement.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Not to condescend, but isn’t this a conversation about hate speech laws?
And I am against them, agree with Matt that our definition of free speech is the real American exceptionalism. Yet I don’t think we should pat ourselves on the back in this way, because on the issue specifically discussed here, freedom of the press or media in general, America is far from perfect. In fact, in a recent ranking of freedom of the press across countries, the US was only ranked around #30, with Scandinavian states monopolizing the top scores.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I just thought of something else:
If you were jewish, say, and you lived in a country that is nominally neutral on the whole jewish immigration issue, but many people are deeply anti-semitic, how would you react to a highly popular movie that explains the motivations of Jewish People to be cheapskates? Do you *really* think suppressing that movie would have driven antisemitic sentiment underground (in what is a semi-openly anti-semitic country)and make it fester into something worse?
Or would you tolerate the heightened number of people who throws pennies at you? Or when people assume that you’ve got some sort of hoard like some damn leperchaun hidden on your property and decides to capture you and torture the “truth” out of you? Just because the film will invite ridicule and thus undermine the acceptance of antisemitism?
Don’t be such a fuckin’ dense Pollyanna. Hate speech laws are generally there for a reason, and countries that have them are being *transparent*. As a practical matter of fact, *all* sane countries have some sort of mechanism against hate speech, whether it is in some terrorism laws or through social control such as intimidating the press.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
That is just a wee bit inflammatory to be coming from a party leader, I think.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“Hate speech laws are generally there for a reason, and countries that have them are being *transparent*.”
The Sedition Act was there for a reason, too. All laws are generally there for a reason. That doesn’t mean they work, or that they don’t trample indispensable legal principles like freedom of speech.
“As a practical matter of fact, *all* sane countries have some sort of mechanism against hate speech, whether it is in some terrorism laws or through social control such as intimidating the press.”
Those are extremely different: one relies on the freedom of the intellectual marketplace, the other on government control. We didn’t ban Amos ‘n’ Andy; we let it fail when the racist ideas that it was based on fell out of favor. This strategy failed so badly that now we have a black President.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
It is not like hateful propaganda doesn’t have real consequences in the US. Here in New York, in the last year alone two Hispanics were killed by two different groups of teens who were roaming the street specifically to beat up some brown guys.
It works the other way, too. How many black-on-white murders come about because of all of the people fomenting black resentment by talking about “white privilege?”
Shouldn’t the so-called anti-racists be held accountable for the Knoxville atrocity?
What about Charles Thornton?
Why do we not consider the possibility that the higher rate of black-on-white than white-on-black crime is due to anti-white propaganda if we are going to start policing language based on its propensity to cause violence?
On related but slightly different note. Free speech has limits, lies and incitement against a religious minority are outside those limits and with good reason.
What about incitement against a majority? Or should the majority not enjoy those protections (Alan Dershowitz has argued a weaker version of this). Moreover, is Wilders inciting violence, or just saying things that people consider insulting?
Moreover, all of these attempts to regulate “hate speech” might make more sense if the real worry was that non-Muslim Europeans would perpetrate violence against Muslims. I think a lot of the concern is actually that Muslims, if mocked, will get angry and perpetrate violence against Europeans.
Violent language has always been among the topics that states regulate, for good reason.
But are they as concerned about violence comingfrom Muslims as they are about potential violence that might occur towards Muslims? Remember Theo van Gogh.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Sean – watch Fitna and perhaps you will understand why Wilders thought he needed to make the film. Nothing like your best friend getting killed on the street by a fanatic and then to find out that absolute intolerant swill had been taught in many of the local mosques to get you in a pique.
tomemos – “If that’s the standard, anyone who publishes or sells a Bible should be liable for a Wrongful Death suit by Matthew Shepard’s family.” Was he killed by Jews? Unlike the Koran, there is no mention of violent reprisals against sinners in the New (Christian) Testament. We could argue that the Old Testament might sanction violence against a sinner and thus a Jew could use it as an excuse.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
1.”I agree with Shah8. The people should decide through their democratically elected officials what rights individuals should have. If the people decide that abortion should be illegal, hate speech should be illegal, flag burning should be illegal, restrictions on federal power contained in the Constitution should no longer exist, or that gay people should not be allowed to marry, then there is no basis for denying the will of the people.”
I assume this is an ironic comment. In case it isn’t, as pointed out by others above, this is not the fundamental basis of American law and society, in which rights such as free thought, belief, expression, etc., are inherent in human beings and not granted by any state or social contract.
2. I assume this guy is an asshole and it’s obviously disgusting to compare the Koran to Mein Kampf. However as I understand it the movie iself consists primarily (or even solely) of individual Muslims themselves uttering what any reasonable person would view as hate speech. So it’s an interesting conundrum, isn’t it?
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:34 am
“and it’s not going to help Dutch Muslims assimilate into European society. ”
I don’t think that dutch want to assimilate Arabs or Turks living in Netherland, it’s not planned.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
I agree completely, Matt, and am astonished that any reasonable person would applaud a government’s criminally prosecuting someone for expressing his opinions, however vile or unpopular. The test cases of a society’s commitment to freedom of expression are always going to include boors and idiots. Pleasant, inoffensive speech doesn’t need protecting ; it’s the rights a society accords the bigots and rabble-rousers and lunatics that determines how secure are the free speech rights of all the rest of us.
A prosecution like this puts the government in the position of abetting the kind of intolerance that resulted in the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the murders and threats associated with the publication of the Danish newspaper cartoons that were critical of Islam. And that is a very dangerous road for a free society to go down.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
Just a thought: If the U.S. had comparable laws regarding speech and the prosecution of “prohibited” speech, who would the Bush Administration’s Justice Department have gone after, these last 8 years?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
What happens in US if you hang a noose on a door of an African-American’s office? Not exactly speech, but I’m curious to know whether it’s illegal or not, or just a firing matter.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
The Netherlands has a long history of freedom of speech, thought and religion. That’s why it was a refuge for free thinkers, Jews and other persecuted people in Europe – long before the United States of America was even thought of. Wilders sounds like an opportunist and a controversialist, but I’m curious if these charges are a Dutch thing, or actually an “E.U. legal framework thing”.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Why does everyone think it is about race when islam is criticized. It isn’t it is about the religion. A religion I see as evil, much like I see southern baptists but more so. I have no problem with the heritage of the people it is their beliefs that I want to counter.
A free society needs to be able to criticize those who have no respect for freedom. People who do not respect women’s rights and those who threaten people who leave their religion with death.
I expect that most individual muslims like most individual southern baptists are good people but that doesn’t change the fact that both religions are evil.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
That’s why we don’t allow people to advocate death to people, to shout fire in a theater, or advocate terror and property siezures against a minority. Full Stop.
The US actually allows the first and third of those so long as the risk of harm is not imminent. That is, I can publish a pamphlet, an internet post, or whatever saying person X should be killed or that we should take all of person Y’s property. (If I was standing outside the person’s home leading an angry mob, then I’d be more at risk of committing a crime because of the imminence)
But I want to focus on the second one. Where that phrase comes from is a 1919 US Supreme Court case called Schenk v. United States. And what did Schenk unanimously hold? That protesting against the draft during World War I presented a clear and present danger and so could be punished by the state.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
@Lee Hamilton,
the debate about whether Wilders should be prosecuted is a sideshow in two larger debates currently being held in the Netherlands. One is a broad discussion on the way society should absorb its immigrants, and what is expected of immigrants in return in order to receive Dutch citizenship at the end of the integration-proces. Should they just get acquainted with our peculiar Dutch ways, our Santa Claus and our speed skating and our specific brands of calvinism, or should they try to assimilate into Dutch society and check their cultural heritage at the door?
In this discussion much bull has been passed back and forth, by Wilders and quite a few other people.
Also, our Parliament is currently locking horns with our Attorney General about whether the Blasphemy Act that makes it illegal to offend God and religion should be repealed, or whether offensive texts and other communications about God and religion should henceforth fall under the Freedom of Speech Act. And still be punishable, but by a different letter of Law.
The best legal minds in the country are at a deadlock, so this call about Geert Wilders having to be prosecuted could be seen as a mischievous act by the Amsterdam Superior Court to speed things up.
The chance that he will actually be convicted is about zero, but this somehow fits neatly into the discussion, because the ‘assimilationists’ will put forward that Muslims should learn to not be so easily offended, as their christian brethren had to learn, while others will say that this procedure shows exactly how anybody can go to court to demand their rights.
Interestingly enough, another Parliamentarian faces the same proceedings. He went to a pro-Palestinian demonstration and did not leave when the crowd started to shout “Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the Gas”. He could face being indited for inducing racial hatred.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Like I mentioned in another thread. Freedom of speech in America is a myth.
Suppose a movie is made arguing the same thing about Jews and Torah. Guess what would have happened.
Revolution in Willamsburg!!!!!
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
It would be treated as a threat, akin to sending a death threat through the mail; it would not be protected as free speech.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
And another thing, having just linked to the BBC article.
It seems it’s a bit oversimplistic to say that that Wilders “likened” the Quran to Mein Kampf; the context adds terrific irony, and ammo to both sides in this debate: he called for it to be banned in “the same way we ban Mein Kampf.”
The fact that my own sympathies lie with Matt in this debate doesn’t stop me from enjoying seeing a blowhard being hoist with his own petard.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I have watched FITNA on Liveleaks. I much prefer the US system of free speech, but let no one pretend FITNA is in any way justifiable. I am a left-liberal gay man, and, believe you me, I have no desire to live in a Sharia state, but I also taught Islamic History at college-level for a few years, and I was in no doubt that FITNA seriously misrepresented Islam, ignored many varied traditions of Islamic Qur’anic interpretation, and must have felt like an attack by Holland’s mostly Moroccan and Indonesian population. As almost any student of Islam would acknowledge, in both countries/regions Islam has a rather tolerant history. See Clifford Geertz book on Islam in both regions.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“I’m not really sure about that Matt. Just like during prohibition alcohol consumption really did go down quite a bit I’m sure banning hate speech does have a strong impact on discourse.”
Now that’s the worst example you could mention. Frankly I would rather accept a few limitations on freedom of speech than allow the government to dictate behavior to such an extent. Both are related, of course. The alleged high value that Americans place on individual freedom doesn’t quite square with the fact that you can be arrested for inoffensively having a drink in a public park. In general, laws in the US are rather more restrictive of individual freedom than they are anywhere in Europe.
But I digress. It would have been useful if Matt had explained what the charges against Wilders actually are. A pure discussion of principles is useless in this context. If you declare that no limits should be on speech as a matter of principle, you have to acknowledge that there is no place in the world where that absolute freedom exists. In the US, there are many such limits. That student who was disciplined for holding a drug decriminalization banner. The mall visitor wearing an anit-Iraq war T-shirt who was arrested because he refused to cover the T-shirt. Or even Oprah Winfrey having to defend herself in court for a remark about mad cow disease (if you have never heard of this, you absolutely need to google it). We could also mention the mass persecution of communists on purely ideological grounds. If you believe that the US is absolutely committed to the principle of free speech, you don’t know history.
Concerning Wilders again, I strongly suspect that he will be cleared by the court (guess what, on free speech grounds) and the prosecution will only make him more prominent. He’d have to have made some really really outrageous statements to be convicted. My take is that hate speech prosecution can be justifiable in some cases but it really needs to be reserved for the most extreme cases – on the grounds of both principle and pragmatism.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“What happens in US if you hang a noose on a door of an African-American’s office? – It would be treated as a threat, akin to sending a death threat through the mail; it would not be protected as free speech.”
A death threat against a specific person is punishable but what about a death threat against a whole group of people? That is the kind of extreme case I have in mind when I say that hate speech prosecution can be justifiable in some cases.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“If you believe that the US is absolutely committed to the principle of free speech, you don’t know history.”
Of course no one is saying that, but we are saying that we don’t want to make the problem worse by legally restricting expression.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“Of course no one is saying that, but we are saying that we don’t want to make the problem worse by legally restricting expression.”
There *are* legal restrictions on expression. In the case of the highschool students, that went up all the way to the Supreme Court.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Let me get this right. If you are a bit of an ass and not a very good politician, you might be so silly as to compare somebody to Hitler. But as long as you only compare political enemies, such as elected officials and/or the opposition party, to Hitler, it is O.K.? Why the special protection for religion? It isn’t as if somebody’s race (over which they have no control) was criticized. If you don’t want to be criticized about the excesses of a group you CHOOSE to affiliate yourself with, either reform it or resign from it. If a political party ever had a radical wing that did the disgusting things that the radical wing of Islam did, that party would die in a heartbeat.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 am
I’m from the Netherlands myself, and I couldn’t agree more. One of the major deficiencies of Dutch democracy — and of most other European democracies — is the absence of the full embracement of the principle of free speech, under any circumstance and whatever its consequences. Let every fringe extremist freely speak his mind — the moderate public will recognize it for what it is. We need greater trust in the intelligence of civil society rather than silencing dissenintg voices.
February 13th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Y8IF3G hi! http://msn.com my site
March 1st, 2009 at 5:45 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 4th, 2009 at 3:50 am
nrGcIo zhsvvvln byqrfnee ikkuhuxq
March 7th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
rnkpxmam xouimlyj mmwrrnmq
March 7th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
uzmnjpcq chynihaw mejnlgsk
March 7th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
jjlzitch uvleatzy hjbftpkn
March 8th, 2009 at 12:22 am
lvfhidpb ijbgtalm xupgpttm
March 8th, 2009 at 1:07 am
bemtbqyt ubprslfr vyjdmkai
March 8th, 2009 at 1:48 am
rgeffclx pqtfjcju ewxqaapy
March 8th, 2009 at 3:29 am
ghquvvqx hmpmnmbn eclstzvz
March 8th, 2009 at 3:20 am
lsberwgs vddmwcwv fuzrseal
March 8th, 2009 at 4:49 am
tsimyqbg acajirnt dfoypdtn
March 8th, 2009 at 5:22 am
mfkuotiv iuvngrkb ukpcqnlu
March 8th, 2009 at 6:09 am
uysytyqg nliivdep zxkiupdj
March 8th, 2009 at 6:45 am
rkrcbdzn fhcvibmp jxqozwvz
March 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
gpmoegts stgknblz atcaocab
March 9th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
yWTxVe vvhyxmwe zmowynwl zexvhhpb
March 10th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
BM40rg kicfnyry hsrcknus ddhqibuk
March 11th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Great site, Good info viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
oGfOQM ygvutihnmkdi, [url=http://guemmqnnvhrm.com/]guemmqnnvhrm[/url], [link=http://ofdkriosdeww.com/]ofdkriosdeww[/link], http://rhkznnubbmtv.com/
April 19th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
isnVWc lfscsjpitvjn, [url=http://ozpfwbpbfijj.com/]ozpfwbpbfijj[/url], [link=http://avnzefpcystb.com/]avnzefpcystb[/link], http://ymficvlyezcr.com/