On the Topic of Hate Speech Laws

[Coito ergo sum]

This link doesn't mention canaduh, but pretty sure it's illegal here as well..."it" being holocaust denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again ... ust_denial

Criminalizing holocaust denial and banning things like Mein Kampf is very dangerous. Ideas, even false ideas, must be free.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859.

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - John Milton (while making a plea in defense of freedom of expression and the toleration of falsehood).

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[ - Noam Chomsky.

[Seth]

This link doesn't mention canaduh, but pretty sure it's illegal here as well..."it" being holocaust denial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again ... ust_denial

Criminalizing holocaust denial and banning things like Mein Kampf is very dangerous. Ideas, even false ideas, must be free.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859.

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." - John Milton (while making a plea in defense of freedom of expression and the toleration of falsehood).

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[ - Noam Chomsky.

"Know thy enemy" Sun Tzu

[Coito ergo sum]

It has never ceased to amaze me how easily people can be persuaded that distasteful ideas and words should be criminalized. All the ground gained in this area can be lost in short order - one generation of enough people convinced that they need to be protected from "offensive" and "hurtful" ideas and freedom of thought can be destroyed. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, I suppose.

[Coito ergo sum]

[epepke]

I don't see the problem here. The determiners of Canadian and many European cultures don't like free speech. They just don't, and they consider themselves morally superior for disliking it. It's a cultural choice.

Germany has made holocaust denial illegal for the same reason they make it difficult for people to buy a copy of Mein Kampf. France has restricted holocaust denial for the same reasons that they forbid the sale of "Nazi memorabilia." That is, they don't want people to think about the time they slaughtered millions of civilians and handed them over for slaughter.

Some dumbfucks will doubtless point out that there are people in the US who want to limit free speech, too. Which, of course, is true, and it's the reason for the First Amendment, which the same people have a tendency to call a fetish when it protects speech that they would rather limit.

[Cunt]

In which country do you think free speech is best protected? How would one even define such a thing?

[Hermit]

In which country do you think free speech is best protected? How would one even define such a thing?

(a) The PRC
(b) The ability to say anything without any fear of punishment

To illustrate: The Australian Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, visited The People's Republic of China. (His visit caused outrage in the "free world" until President Nixon followed suit shortly after.) Whitlam said to Mao Zedong: "Australia is a great democracy! Anyone can shout out loud: "The Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, is a fink!" without any fear of punishment!" Mao replied: "China also is a great democracy! Here too, anyone can shout out loud: "The Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, is a fink!" without any fear of punishment!"

[Coito ergo sum]

In which country do you think free speech is best protected? How would one even define such a thing?

Most western countries protect free speech about the same, but arguments can be made. I think that freedom of speech protections is one of the areas where the US most excels. Our "first amendment" is doggedly protected by the people and by the courts, and is one of the areas that the even some of the most horrid and distasteful points of view are protected. One need only look to the ACLU's defense of the Nazi party in the Skokie case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... _of_Skokie ) to see how the US law protects unpopular viewpoints.

In any case - I'll not go so far as to say the US protects speech, "the best," but it is the country whose laws I know the best. I know that some countries, like Canada and Germany, have laws prohibiting certain speech and publications that would most certainly be struck down as unconstitutional here in the US. So, I have to think the US is "right up there" in the top few as far as protecting speech.

But, generally speaking, also "right up there" would be the UK, Holland, Belgium, Italy, France, and other western countries. Down at the bottom of the list we would have North Korea, Burma, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, China, Uzbekhistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Belarus - rounding out the bottom 15, I guess. All around the bottom, say 150, I think we'd find most of southern Asia, most of Africa. Most of the world doesn't respect freedom of speech - those of us in the west are spoiled.

[Warren Dew]

Most western countries protect free speech about the same, but arguments can be made. I think that freedom of speech protections is one of the areas where the US most excels. Our "first amendment" is doggedly protected by the people and by the courts, and is one of the areas that the even some of the most horrid and distasteful points of view are protected. One need only look to the ACLU's defense of the Nazi party in the Skokie case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... _of_Skokie ) to see how the US law protects unpopular viewpoints.

I think the U.S. is considerably ahead of most other western countries. I doubt the Skokie case - which, by the way, is the case that got me started donating to the ACLU, precisely because it showed that they believed in freedom of speech for everyone, not just for the people they agreed with - would have gone the same way in most other western countries. I would go so far as to say the difference between the U.S. and places like France, Germany, and perhaps Canada is at least as large as the difference between the latter three and the countries you mention that are generally considered unfree.

The UK is better, though their libel laws are restrictive enough that they're not quite as good as the U.S. in protecting free speech.

That said, the current Supreme Court justices are not as good at protecting viewpoints they don't agree with as earlier courts. A comparison of the votes in Morse v Frederick and FEC v WRTL will show you what I mean: each of the nine justices voted for free speech in one case and against free speech in the other. We need justices - or at least one justice - that would vote for free speech in both those cases.

[epepke]

The UK is better, though their libel laws are restrictive enough that they're not quite as good as the U.S. in protecting free speech.

The UK has much more prior restraint, though. And, as you pointed out, the truth of statements is not a defense for an accusation of libel or slander.

[Coito ergo sum]

The UK is better, though their libel laws are restrictive enough that they're not quite as good as the U.S. in protecting free speech.

The UK has much more prior restraint, though. And, as you pointed out, the truth of statements is not a defense for an accusation of libel or slander.

Didn't the UK change that? I mean, that always seemed weird to me -that you couldn't make truthful statements, just because they were defamatory. Kinda like a "sweep it under the rug" rule.

[charlou]

Also, I never thought I would want to defend right-wing Christians, but after hearing about this other 'Human Rights' case...

Neither did Lavant, apparently ... he commented about his previous attitude to neo-Nazis ... until he experienced this perversion and abuse of government endorsed power for himself ... and good on him for his change of position on that.

[epepke]

Didn't the UK change that?

I don't know. I haven't paid much attention to recent UK history, except for the legalization of pornography.

[Coito ergo sum]

Paris prosecutors say Galliano to stand trial

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ ... 2-12-48-31

And, now I have to side with the anti-semitic boob.

Fuck you Paris prosecutors! Fuck you French abomination of a law!

This is not a crime!

[laklak]

Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. 6 months for a drunken rant?