Europe Must Embrace Free Speech

[deep]

The guilt is addressed by having the law and enforcing it.

Can you see why we are uncomfortable with what amounts to a thought crime?

you can not have it both ways

it sounds like you are saying governments should not put controls on what people say or think?

 

[nbcrusader]

you can not have it both ways

it sounds like you are saying governments should not put controls on what people say or think?

I was not suggesting the former, just restating what I believe Hiphop was saying.

I agree with you on the later.

 

[verte76]

hiphop...I can understand how such laws would make sense in the time immediately after the war. But how much longer will something like that be necessary or relevant?

The KKK may not have a had a major political party, but in a large part of the south, they might as well have. There was a huge amount of sympathy and tolerance (at best) of crimes against blacks and others.

Personally I even have trouble with the concept of "inciting violence" as a crime, but have eventually had to come to the conclusion that while it's not perfect free speech, it's a practical law to protect society. If your lawmakers really believe that laws against hate speech are entirely practical, necessary, relevant etc then I guess they are appropriate. I just wonder if that's the case 60 years later.

In my state, Alabama, no one could get elected governor without getting endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan. In 1924 the KKK kept a Catholic, Al Smith, from getting the Democratic Presidential nomination. He got it in 1928 and lost. Does Austria still need anti-Fascist laws? I can understand why decent people wouldn't want this stuff in their back yard, but does it have to be illegal?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Regardless of national image it is still anti-freedom.

 

[verte76]

Regardless of national image it is still anti-freedom.

And some would argue that certain forms of freedom are bad. I'm not one of them. But like I said I'm not Austrian. If I were I might feel different. It's a cultural gap.

 

[hiphop]

It's a cultural gap.

I agree.

I am more comfortable with a justice system that forbids Nazis to act, but does not enforce death penalty or excuse torture.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And some would argue that certain forms of freedom are bad. I'm not one of them. But like I said I'm not Austrian. If I were I might feel different. It's a cultural gap.

When we start dividing our liberties into positive and negative that is the path of authoritarianism.

Positive Liberty - Peaceful Religious Expression, Speech That Doesn't Offend, Innofensive Art etc.

Negative Liberty - Ruinous Gambling, Drugs, Suicide, Self-Harm, Hate Speech etc.

These are all expressions of liberty - the individual rights to self, some are considered good and some are considered bad. When we start equating liberties with violations of those liberties it is dangerous, how long does it take for the gap to close on free speech, starts with anti-Nazi laws, then anti-Racist laws, then anti-Islamophobic laws, before you know it gay rights groups are getting censure over calling Sharia Law anti-gay.

In an ideal society the individual would be accountable to themselves alone and could excercise whatever liberties they desire without infringing on the rights of others - rights that do not include the right not to be offended.

Punishment within a society is a way of securing rights and enforcing the no-harm principle. The death penalty is the ultimate violation and suspension of rights - the right to exist, however it is excercised against those who have commited the ultimate violation of another individuals rights. While there is room for moral and ethical opposition to this punishment equating a punitive measure against those who violate the no harm principle to one against those who excercise their liberties is in principle wrong. You have elaborated an argument to say that hate speech is wrong because police beat up immigrants. You are correct in that beating up immigrants is wrong, but the cause of that rests exclusively upon the officers and possibly the immigrants (depending on the situation), the violation of the immigrants rights and their personal security by the police is an independent violation. In a courtroom the officer could not lay blame for their excessive use of force upon an anti-immigrant speaker and make them suffer the ultimate punishment. The by-extension argument denies individual responsibility and ascribes actions to outside forces - forces that just happen to be offensive to most peoples sensibilities. Beating up immigrants and speaking out against immigrants/immigration are in my opinion different things and the distinction between liberty and violation of liberty should not be blurred to make the case against free speech.

Hate speech is not an infringement of any other individuals rights, drug use is also not an infringement of other peoples rights, gay marriage is not an infringement other peoples rights. All of these things should be made legal, not celebrated or glorified, but made legal.

Assault, Murder, Theft and Fraud are violations of other peoples rights (rights to personal security and property). They should be met with a proportional deprivation of the offenders liberties, in some societies they deem the death penalty to be the highest punishment, but the reason for the punishment remains the deprivation of another individuals liberty and as such is completely different than excercising the liberty of free speech to say offensive and racist things.

The logic of making hate speech illegal is not consistent with those of free speech. The right to tell people what they do not want to hear is the highest state of affairs and to subvert it in the name of harmony or anti-racism is a form of trading liberty for security.

 

[VertigoGal]

a justice system that forbids Nazis to act

What exactly does this mean? There's a difference between preventing Nazis from actively pursuing goals that violate the rights of others, and expressing through speech a doubt in the Holocaust or anti-Semitism. You may say it's a slippery slope, but that justification is a slippery slope in itself, imo.

(by the way, I'm against the death penalty in most cases )

 

[hiphop]

is a form of trading liberty for security.

Exactly. I also agree with most of the rest of your post.

The European reality that you can´t understand is why we are trading free speech liberty for security. We make an exception to free speech, and it is the only exception, here. This does absolutely not mean that our democracy is in danger, and it also doesn´t imply that the state has any right to forbid anything else.

It just makes sense here - 6 millions of victims in concentration camps and +50 millions in WWII. All this dictatorship and the way the propaganda was organized, the way the SS and SA worked -

in that case, a country that was partly resposible for all that, needs to understand that it makes sense to trade liberty for security. If an Australian or American doesn´t understand that, there´s nothing I can do, then there´s the gap verte was talking about. If an Italian can understand it, see above poster,.. ask yourself why? they had Mussolini. They still have the idiot Mussolini daughter or something talking shit in the newspapers. Italians understand because they´ve had the same stuff running in their country.

 

[hiphop]

double post

 

[hiphop]

What exactly does this mean? There's a difference between preventing Nazis from actively pursuing goals that violate the rights of others, and expressing through speech a doubt in the Holocaust or anti-Semitism. You may say it's a slippery slope, but that justification is a slippery slope in itself, imo.

slippery slope blah blah aside: after the horror of the holocaust you don´t need any justification for forbidding Nazis to spread their hate speech. hate speech can inspire other people to get active, therefore it´s dangerous enough. however, you are free to say everything you want, including hate speeches in Austria -there´s just one exception, the hailing of national socialism in any form in any case.

you can argue that wearing a svastika doesn´t physically hurt anyone. and so what? not with us; not here. throw the Nazis into our - very humane - prisons if they have the nerve to lie about the holocaust goes fine with an overwhelming majority of our society.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Might makes right

 

[hiphop]

Might makes right

you´re free to organize a free willy demo

n make sure to take Brendan and BBC with you - they will be delighted http://www.brendanoneill.net/

 

[nbcrusader]

slippery slope blah blah aside: after the horror of the holocaust you don´t need any justification for forbidding Nazis to spread their hate speech. hate speech can inspire other people to get active, therefore it´s dangerous enough. however, you are free to say everything you want, including hate speeches in Austria -there´s just one exception, the hailing of national socialism in any form in any case.

you can argue that wearing a svastika doesn´t physically hurt anyone. and so what? not with us; not here. throw the Nazis into our - very humane - prisons if they have the nerve to lie about the holocaust goes fine with an overwhelming majority of our society.

The slippery slope argument is critical to the maintenance of liberty.

If Austria is willing to jail speak or think differently on this issue, what is to stop them from jailing supporters of the death penalty? Or supporters of the war in Iraq? Or those who teach Scripture from a conservative perspective?

After dwelling on this issue, it seems that the response to a history of fascism is to use a little dose of fascism today.

 

[verte76]

Perhaps Austrians think that it's a form of "letting it happen again" to tolerate Nazi ideas being promoted in public. After all, "never again" is something we all agree on--unless you're a Nazi.

 

[nbcrusader]

Perhaps Austrians think that it's a form of "letting it happen again" to tolerate Nazi ideas being promoted in public. After all, "never again" is something we all agree on--unless you're a Nazi.

A "never again" argument could be used to lock up all militant imans. Is that really a good standard?

 

[verte76]

A "never again" argument could be used to lock up all militant imans. Is that really a good standard?

I'm not saying I agree with the Austrian law. I'm just trying to figure out how people who believe in democracy can support this sort of limitation. Yes, it could be used to lock up all militant imans.

 

[hiphop]

If Austria is willing to jail speak or think differently on this issue, what is to stop them from jailing supporters of the death penalty? Or supporters of the war in Iraq? Or those who teach Scripture from a conservative perspective?

We live in a democracy. For something totally unrealistic like that to happen - yet it is possible - parties or political representatives would have to introduce a new law, which would have to get passed by the parliament. Since there are no Nazis in the Parliament (at least not officially) and the Communists are far from having any serious influence, I doubt any party would want to introduce such a law. Also, the majority of Austrians would be against it. Since this may be against our constitution, probably the human rights or some other laws (like I said. we have free speech with this very one exception) it is near to impossible for such things to be proposed in Parliament - and a 2/3rd majority of Austrians would have to agree if this includes an ever so slight change of the constitution. Plus there would be serious problems with the EU who wouldn´t appreciate Austria going back into stoneage (where Turkey still resides).

I think in the U.S. the democratic process is relatively similar.

 

[hiphop]

Yes, it could be used to lock up all militant imans.

Not in Austria though. ..see my previous post.

When we start comparing 9/11 to WWII and the Nazis by comparing holocaust deniers to militant imams (congratulations, nbcrusader!) it gets very clear that one doesn´t have the slightest idea what I´m talking about when I try to explain the Austrian view. Hello, can we stay a little reasonable historically or is this asked too much?

 

[Otokonoko]

Some things don't need to be said.

 

[A_Wanderer]

In Austria today is there more of a potential threat from Nazis or Islamic Extremists?

The answer is apparently Nazis because the right has political influence and there are racists out there.

I still think that having laws against holocaust denial (a premise that can be proved wrong with the facts) and hate speech are essentially infringing on the liberty of free expression. Free speech is by definition unfettered so it is a lie to declare that the country has unlimited free speech when saying certain things (no matter how vile) will get you locked up.

 

[nbcrusader]

We live in a democracy. For something totally unrealistic like that to happen - yet it is possible - parties or political representatives would have to introduce a new law, which would have to get passed by the parliament. Since there are no Nazis in the Parliament (at least not officially) and the Communists are far from having any serious influence, I doubt any party would want to introduce such a law. Also, the majority of Austrians would be against it. Since this may be against our constitution, probably the human rights or some other laws (like I said. we have free speech with this very one exception) it is near to impossible for such things to be proposed in Parliament - and a 2/3rd majority of Austrians would have to agree if this includes an ever so slight change of the constitution. Plus there would be serious problems with the EU who wouldn´t appreciate Austria going back into stoneage (where Turkey still resides).

I think in the U.S. the democratic process is relatively similar.

That's the point - the law that put David Irving in jail could become the law that puts other in jail for other thoughts and words. That is why we don't place prior restraints on speech through majority votes.

 

[verte76]

We live in a democracy. For something totally unrealistic like that to happen - yet it is possible - parties or political representatives would have to introduce a new law, which would have to get passed by the parliament. Since there are no Nazis in the Parliament (at least not officially) and the Communists are far from having any serious influence, I doubt any party would want to introduce such a law. Also, the majority of Austrians would be against it. Since this may be against our constitution, probably the human rights or some other laws (like I said. we have free speech with this very one exception) it is near to impossible for such things to be proposed in Parliament - and a 2/3rd majority of Austrians would have to agree if this includes an ever so slight change of the constitution. Plus there would be serious problems with the EU who wouldn´t appreciate Austria going back into stoneage (where Turkey still resides).

I think in the U.S. the democratic process is relatively similar.

OK, I get it. You're not going to tell a priest he can't endorse Opus Dei or oppose contraception, you're just going to tell him he can't preach Nazism. The problem I have with this is Nazism and racism are intertwined. How much of this stuff is also illegal? This idea is so alien to Americans, we would call it censorship.

 

[hiphop]

That's the point - the law that put David Irving in jail could become the law that puts other in jail for other thoughts and words.

For a European, this is a completely American thought. For us, it would be exaggerated and scary to assume that just because one thing is forbidden others could be too.. to put any other restrictions on free speech is totally out of question.

So I have to disagree with you. The law that put Irving in jail can not becaome the law that puts others in jail for other thoughts and words. It´s not a precendent or anything.

 

[hiphop]

OK, I get it. You're not going to tell a priest he can't endorse Opus Dei or oppose contraception, you're just going to tell him he can't preach Nazism.

exactly.

The problem I have with this is Nazism and racism are intertwined. How much of this stuff is also illegal? This idea is so alien to Americans, we would call it censorship.

That´s a good point. Indeed, instead of discussing that specific Austrian law, it would be much more interesting to discuss issues of racism in Austria.

Racism is not illegal. As bad as it is, I would not want racist speech to be illegal. Racist action, i.e. beating up Africans, is illegal, but will be ... kinda overlooked. Like I have mentioned elsewhere, the Austrian police has a bad reputation for killing Africans. This is a big problem in Austria, not that this jerk Irving still serves his time in jail.

I agree that banning Nazi speech is censorship. You still don´t think America would censor such dangerous speech if WW II had happened in NY, in LA, in Texas? WW II caused 50 millions of deaths. Multiply 9/11 with 10,000 if you want to compare. Go ahead.

See, it is not imaginable, it is not comparable, what happened in Europe is a holocaust of such incredible dimensions that all standards fail miserably. This is why you maybe need to be European to fully understand that exception to free speech.

 

[verte76]

See, it is not imaginable, it is not comparable, what happened in Europe is a holocaust of such incredible dimensions that all standards fail miserably. This is why you maybe need to be European to fully understand that exception to free speech.

Yeah. You'll notice that none of the people who disagree with you on this are European.

 

[hiphop]

Yes. Still I have the feeling that even if you don´t agree with me, you can understand why.

 

[Otokonoko]

I can see where it is coming from (I think!). I don't know if I agree with any sort of censorship or not, because I can say what I want. But then again, I don't live somewhere where inflammatory words have killed millions. I guess it is like censoring child porn - each society has to make its own choices about what they do and don't want their people to see, hear, say or do.

Oh dear, I am going to be crucified for saying that.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Child pornography by definition involves exploitation of a minor and a violation of their liberties. Hate speech is offensive and vile, but it is an expression of liberty nontheless and it in itself does not infringe upon anybody elses freedoms.

 

[Otokonoko]

Child pornography by definition involves exploitation of a minor and a violation of their liberties. Hate speech is offensive and vile, but it is an expression of liberty nontheless and it in itself does not infringe upon anybody elses freedoms.

What I am getting at, though, is that it is up to individual societies to determine their own values. We abhor child porn, Austrians abhor hate speech. When Murrandoo Yanner called on the Palm Islanders to go out and kill a cop after Cameron Doomadgee's death, he was speaking from a point of view of hatred, and he was encouraging the violation of liberties. He got away with that one, although the Police Union wanted him to be done for inciting violence.

I know this is drawing a very long parallel, but what I am trying to say is that sometimes, things that we are allowed to say in a free-speaking democracy should not be allowed.

After the violence in Cronulla last year, we are starting to censor free speech as well - and I support that 100% (at this stage).