Europe Must Embrace Free Speech

[A_Wanderer]

Europe must embrace true free speech
By Brendan O'Neill
LONDON – In Europe, five years into the 21st century, two writers face trial and imprisonment for something they said or wrote. Both could be incarcerated, not for physically harming another person or for damaging property, but for uttering words that European states deem offensive.

Yet only one has been defended by the international literati, who have described the attempt to curtail his freedom of speech as an act of "anachronistic brutality." The other writer's plight has been ignored; worse, many liberals have supported the campaign to punish him for expressing outrageous views.

As such, the two cases cast a harsh light on the debate about free speech in Europe: They suggest we Europeans have a partial, picky attitude to freedom of expression, and thus do not understand the real meaning of this fundamental liberty.

link

It goes on to touch upon an example of how speech is punished for all the "right" reasons.

 

[BonosSaint]

With some discomfort, I agree with you. But free speech should not be determined by whether I am comfortable with it or not.

 

[hiphop]

Nice article.

Needless to say I don´t agree with what the author descirbes as truly believing in freedom of speech.

quote:

The writers are Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist, and David Irving, a British historian.

They could not be more different. Mr. Pamuk is an internationally acclaimed author whose work has been translated into more than 20 languages. He is currently being charged in Turkey for "denigrating Turkishness." His "crime," for which he faces up to three years behind bars, was to question Ankara's official line on the mass killing of Armenians by Turks during World War I and to call for a more upfront analysis of those terrible events.

Mr. Irving, by contrast, is a historian who denies the truth of the Nazi Holocaust. His words are vile and deeply offensive. He once claimed that "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

He is currently in prison in Vienna, Austria, where he was arrested in November for two speeches he made in that country more than 15 years ago in which he allegedly said there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. Holocaust denial is a crime in Austria, and if Irving is found guilty at his trial in February he could be jailed for up to 10 years.

Pamuk's plight has become a cause célèbre; Irving's has not. European politicians and writers have descended on Ankara to protest the trial of Pamuk and to chastise Turkey for behaving like a "dictatorial regime." Irving, meanwhile, has been left to languish in his Viennese cell. No well-known liberal voice has demanded that he be freed. Rather, as one news report put it, the arrest of Irving in Austria - "a country still coming to grips with its Nazi-ruled past" - has won the state "praise worldwide."

--------
comment:


Pamuk is in prison for "denigrating Turkishness". I don´t know how this is supposed to be a crime, we do not have a crime fro "denigrating Austrian-ness" or anything in that direction. Still, he´s in prison in Turkey. Just to have it mentioned.. a Turkish prison is a little different compared to an Austrian prison. Maybe you can see why some Europeans are critical of Turkey´s human rights record and upcoming EU membership.


Irving broke the law. Whatever you may think of our national law, he broke it and he´s in prison for that. This particular Austrian law was installed for important reasons. Without wanting to discuss these at length now (also because they are apparent), there´s no discussion about that - he broke it.

If you are so eager on total 100% free speech, how come an american agent breaks law when he publishes classified information? I´ll tell you why: He breaks the law because he hurts the country´s reputation, secret service and national interests. Same for people who deny the holocaust in Austria: they hurt the countries´ reputation and national interests; additionally the extreme right is dangerous; there are people like Haider or LePen, they get enough media exposure with their hate speeches against immigrants (should be prohibited too) - imagine what could happen if they were also allowed to deny the holocaust.

In reality there is no such thing as free speech in the U.S. For example, the moment that you make a harmless joke about the controls at an airport security checkpoint, you violate U.S. law - there are signs all over the airport about this (where you´re queuing to take your shoes off). Free speech when you´re not allowed to make a joke or an offensive remark? Well, excuse me, I´ll rather have the Nazis locked up.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that those types of speech codes would effectively fall under the banner of privileged speech.

National security is not about protecting repuation, it is about protecting technologies, intelligence assets and political manouvers in a nations dealings with the world. Much like confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with industries.

I think that to justify laws banning certain types of offensive speech by equating them to the leaking of secret information is not asserting a love of free speech. It is just affirming an anti-free speech position by confusing national interest and national image.

The issues of flight security could be considered to fall under the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" adage, something that the US Supreme Court has had a bit to say about - something that does not infringe upon free expression to anywhere near the degree of banning offensive speech and locking people up for speaking or publishing it.

The importance of free speech on the continent are being put on full display now in the pressure being put upon the Danish government by Islamic groups and the United Nations over Jyllands-Posten publishing cartoons of Mohammed that some Muslims find deeply offensive. Free speech is an all or nothing affair in matters of expression and when those protections are removed then there is no telling where it may end. Free speech is at it's best when it makes true believers get homocidal and people get upset with the contrarian position, if the price of that is to see the dregs of humanity get to speak and be ruthlessly torn rhetorically then so be it.

 

[lady luck]

If you are so eager on total 100% free speech, how come an american agent breaks law when he publishes classified information? I´ll tell you why: He breaks the law because he hurts the country´s reputation, secret service and national interests. Same for people who deny the holocaust in Austria: they hurt the countries´ reputation and national interests; additionally the extreme right is dangerous; there are people like Haider or LePen, they get enough media exposure with their hate speeches against immigrants (should be prohibited too) - imagine what could happen if they were also allowed to deny the holocaust.

I agree.
I live in Italy and we, too, have a law that prohibite to show support or agreement with Fascism/Nazism.
I am not sure that you go in prison if you do that -- perhaps you will get a fine.


I don't think u know, but Freedom of Speech here is a complex thing, due to the fact that the prime minister owns 3 TVs and the majority of newspaper/magazine.
So, what you will see there is the "official" version of everything.

For mysterious reasons, in my country no one really did anything about this situation.
I know some journalists were accused of lying when they "cross the border" and criticize the government -- but of course there was lil speech about that.
A thing better known is that the broadcasting of three people, two journalists and an anchorman, Biagi, Santoro and Luttazzi, were interrupted because they were too critical towards the governement and apparently "too left wing".

 

[A_Wanderer]

Silencing neo-Nazis is as pro-free speech as silencing dissenting opinions against the government of the day.

 

[BonosSaint]

Now whether the US is in reality a bastion of free speech is another argument all together.

 

[A_Wanderer]

We should distinguish between being anti-free speech and people not listening.

 

[BonosSaint]

Right to free speech. No right to be heard.

 

[nbcrusader]

If you are so eager on total 100% free speech, how come an american agent breaks law when he publishes classified information? I´ll tell you why: He breaks the law because he hurts the country´s reputation, secret service and national interests. Same for people who deny the holocaust in Austria: they hurt the countries´ reputation and national interests; additionally the extreme right is dangerous; there are people like Haider or LePen, they get enough media exposure with their hate speeches against immigrants (should be prohibited too) - imagine what could happen if they were also allowed to deny the holocaust.

I'm not sure "national security" and a "country's reputation" operate on the same level.

Denying the holocaust may be an embarrasment to Austria for historical reasons, but it certainly does not rise to the level of a national security risk.

If you can criminalize certain statements, thoughts or beliefs if they are deemed harmful to national reputation, you've started down a slippery slope to silence large groups of people or even political opposition.

 

[verte76]

Is compromising national security the same thing as undermining a country's reputation? I'm not so sure. There are things that hurt the reputation of my country but don't compromise our security. A good example is the activities and speeches of members of the Ku Klux Klan. There have been classes about American history taught all over the globe. These have dealt with the civil rights movement, and all of the dunderheads who defended segregation. This doesn't make my country--or my city, Birmingham, home of "Bull" Connor, the ass who set the dogs and hoses free on civil rights demonstrators--look any better. But should the Klan be illegal, just because they defend such obnoxious people and ideas? I don't think so. They don't compromise our national security. I don't want to tell the Austrian people what their laws should be, it's none of my damn business. But I question the idea that this might hurt their national security, as Valerie Plame's uncovering did. Since this guy Irving is not even Austrian, I don't know why this should hurt Austria. Austria has a pretty tortured past as per Nazi/Fascist politics is concerned, hell, Hitler was a native of Austria, and I can see why they want to disavow any connection with him. If I were Austrian I might feel the same way. But I'm not Austrian and I can only comment on what I have experience with.

 

[AvsGirl41]

I don't think Irving should be in jail. I loathe the man, but letting him sit there just makes him a martyr for other extremists like him.

My Russian history professor's mentor in college was taken to court by him for "slander" when she attacked his "work" (if you can call it that), so he's hardly an advocate for free speech either. The judge threw it out.

 

[the iron horse]

Free speech?

I live in the U.S. and always vote Liberatrian.
*I know, it may seem a lost cause to many*

It is very scary, to me, how the Bill of Rights seems to be slowly chipped away in the name of tolerance and security.

 

[bonoman]

What about hate laws in the US and Canada?

Do they not limit your free speech?

Why, if someone is saying that the the mass murders of Jews never happened, should be exempt from hate laws. I believe it falls in the same bracket.

 

[BVS]

What about hate laws in the US and Canada?

Do they not limit your free speech?

If I'm not mistaken(and I'm no expert) if the speech doesn't incite violence then no they don't limit speech.

 

[For Honor]

words are funny enough as it is. I don't even know how I shoud address this subject, at the moment

 

[A_Wanderer]

What about hate laws in the US and Canada?

Do they not limit your free speech?

Why, if someone is saying that the the mass murders of Jews never happened, should be exempt from hate laws. I believe it falls in the same bracket.

I don't think that the US has hate speech laws like the ones your talking about, Australia has a few of them. In any case these hate speech laws are limits on free speech and they should be removed.

 

[tommyvill]

I agree.
I live in Italy and we, too, have a law that prohibite to show support or agreement with Fascism/Nazism.
I am not sure that you go in prison if you do that -- perhaps you will get a fine.

Yeah you're right. Here there's a contitutional crime called "apologia di fascismo" (something like "defending fascism") and it lead you straight to jail.
(eh eh! my law studies help me here... )
For the rest yeah I agree for the problems in the freedom of speech here, but I think that luckily the system holds well at the end (everyone still feel free to criticise everything).
Or at least it's not holding less than other Counties (and I don't know how to interpret this... )
That said, my vote will never go to Mr.B and my personal opinion is that we developed anticorps against anti democratical forces 50 years ago...
Ciao,
Tom
(OMG how much did I wrote?And I'm still writing....aaaaahhhh!!please stop me! )

 

[hiphop]

I don't want to tell the Austrian people what their laws should be, it's none of my damn business. But I question the idea that this might hurt their national security, as Valerie Plame's uncovering did. Since this guy Irving is not even Austrian, I don't know why this should hurt Austria. Austria has a pretty tortured past as per Nazi/Fascist politics is concerned, hell, Hitler was a native of Austria, and I can see why they want to disavow any connection with him. If I were Austrian I might feel the same way. But I'm not Austrian and I can only comment on what I have experience with.

You don´t know why this would hurt Austria´s reputation? I will try to explain because you said we want to disavow any connection with Hitler. This is wrong. The contrary is the case.

You are talking as if we have put this Irving into prison because we want to roll a blanket over the country´s history!

The situation is a little more complicated. We do NOT want to disavow any connection with Hitler!

We, as Austrians, want (and need) to admit our fault. That´s why the law was created in the first place. We supported a dictatorship that put 6 millions of Jews, Roma, Homosexuals and other minorities into concentration camps. This dictatorship was officially in power, supprted by a majority of Austrians! Compare that with the KKK? Comeon, in the U.S. you never had that. The KKK committed crimes that were just as cruel as the Nazis´ crimes, but there is a difference: the KKK never was in (political) power.

Probably you don´t know how Austria acted in the 50s and 60s: at this time, we did not talk much about fault. It was not "appropriate", since there were so many ties - maybe your father was a Nazi, or your cousin in the SS. Nuremberg trial, etc.

It is one thing to critisize a state that has committed cruel crimes for this. Exactly that is the case with Pamuk, the Turkish writer: he critisized his authorities, his government, for not dealing enough with the crimes the same state committed in the past. For THIS, they put him into prison.

With Irving, the situation is completely different - just the opposite, in fact! He DENIES that the holocaust has happened. The Austrian government/ society is at the point where it says. We (or our fathers) have helped to commit incredible crimes, surely some of the worst crimes in human history. It is our fault and we are sorry, and we will always be sorry for it. But since we have finally come to that point - the point of the official Austria admitting fault - we do not want, better even, we forbid that someone denies that we have committed them.

See? That´s an important difference. If all Austria said "Oh listen, we never supported Hitler, he just overran us" and then Irving writes a book that this is not the case, and then we put him into prison, then you have the same case like in Turkey. In that case, I would want Irving to be free, and I would critisize our government. But the contrary is the case. He lies, he denies - about our history! Morally, it makes a TREMENDOUS difference if a nation officially admits fault for its past crimes or not. We have, and we don´t need a Brit to tell us that we are lying.

You can´t compare apples and oranges. That´s why I think the article asks the wrong questions.

Fascism is strong everywhere. You can´t just rule it out because it has happened. If you think the KKK in America is no problem because in reality there´s no political power to back it up, well, that´s your opinion. In europe we have a different history. We have seen how fast things can change, how easily dictators can control when you let them, how weak the mind of the masses is, how much you can fool them with propaganda. Indeed, it happens every day with openly displayed hate against immigrants. This country, Austria, is still full of Nazis. 20% vote for extreme right parties! It´s just that they´re not allowed to call themselves Nazis anymore.

In reality the bigger problem is that our police kills immigrants and is not charged for it. But I´m telling you, that´s just the tip of the iceberg. If you allow a nazi party here (or the denial of the holocaust to gain any momentum) I´ll tell you what happens: the rats creep out of their fucking holes and you have no means to stop them.

With this law, we have means to stop them. When Haider says " The employment policy of the 3rd Reich was orderly" there´ll be a public outcry and the media will write about it the next 3 months. He didn´t even get into prison for that.. but imagine that this kind of endorsment was legal. The people listen to this guy. He´s still head of the provincial government of Carinthia.

I hope you feel better informed now. The last thing Austrans would do is to disavow connections with Hitler. We just don´t want anyone to lie about that because this is a little more grave than just throwing BS to the media and see what sticks.

 

[hiphop]

I don't think Irving should be in jail. I loathe the man, but letting him sit there just makes him a martyr for other extremists like him.

No, it just makes him a martyr when a journalist writes about him, so people start talking about him and how wrong it is that this bastard serves his time in jail. Let him rot in prison until the end of time, if no one cares about him, everything is fine, there´s no danger of martyrdom.

 

[melon]

I don't think that the US has hate speech laws like the ones your talking about

No, the U.S. does not. Even Holocaust deniers are not doing anything illegal here.

We choose to let our morons blather out in the open, I guess.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

We, as Austrians, want (and need) to admit our fault. That´s why the law was created in the first place. We supported a dictatorship that put 6 millions of Jews, Roma, Homosexuals and other minorities into concentration camps. This dictatorship was officially in power, supprted by a majority of Austrians! Compare that with the KKK? Comeon, in the U.S. you never had that. The KKK committed crimes that were just as cruel as the Nazis´ crimes, but there is a difference: the KKK never was in (political) power.

(snip)

I hope you feel better informed now. The last thing Austrans would do is to disavow connections with Hitler. We just don´t want anyone to lie about that because this is a little more grave than just throwing BS to the media and see what sticks.

I think there is a large gap between disavowing connections to Hitler and perpetually admiting fault. Is there a point where the collective guilt can stop and Austrians recognize that they have moved beyond the sins of a prior generation? It just doesn't seem healthy.

 

[VertigoGal]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, it just makes him a martyr when a journalist writes about him, so people start talking about him and how wrong it is that this bastard serves his time in jail. Let him rot in prison until the end of time, if no one cares about him, everything is fine, there´s no danger of martyrdom.

Does it make sense to punish one person for the collective guilt of a nation?

 

[hiphop]

I think there is a large gap between disavowing connections to Hitler and perpetually admiting fault. Is there a point where the collective guilt can stop and Austrians recognize that they have moved beyond the sins of a prior generation? It just doesn't seem healthy.

The contrary is the case. Believe me, I understand your mindset, but understand mine. Like I said, the Austrian politicians never admitted fault up until the 1980s!

The sins of a prior generation, that´s all good and nice, you know. Sure, I or an average 20/30 yr old Austrian does not personally feel guilty. It´s not that we´re on a guilt trip or something. But most of us think it is very healthy to remember the past.

Look at the reparations cases. When the Nazis put the Jews away, they also stole all their wealth: antiques, flats, etc., the Jews were "enteignet". Part of the property went to state institutions after WWII. And they never gave them back up until now! In 2005! Payments (and not the largest ones) for the survivors of the holocaust start. Every year some of them die. What about justice?

See, this is all connected. How a country deals with past crimes. What image its giving to other countries. We do not want to forget. These cruelties were so inhume they have to be remembered to serve as a warning example.

That said, I would really like to see the reaction of the American Media (or worldwide for that matter) if there was a new Nazi party in Germany or Austria. Scary, you know. Some people here are still scared of Neonazis. What about their rights? In that case, it is good to protect the victims. I don´t want to see Nazi groups on our streets. I have enough with other assholes, skinheads, hooligans, and a bunch of other morons.

 

[hiphop]

Does it make sense to punish one person for the collective guilt of a nation?

Are you joking?

This person is punished for breaking the law, not for the collective guilt of a nation. It´s incredible what you are saying! You are implying that Austrians throw Neonazis in prison because they have a guilt complex?


Grow up.

 

[hiphop]

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?

I just wonder if that's the case 60 years later.

Imo they will be necessary and relevant until this republic sinks.

You may wonder why. I´d say because the holocaust was so devastating it can probably be forgotten in a thousand years. Until then it shouldn´t be a footnote in history. And no national socialist party should have the chance to rise. I think that was even part of the deal with the allies, clear.. you don´t think they would have given Austria independence back in 1955 if there were no clear laws against another danger from Nazis.

I just wonder how Moscow, Paris, London and Washington would diplomatically react to such a development..

Anyway, that´s not the most important point.. the point is that people here would have fear. We just don´t want to see such morons on our streets. Is this so damn hard to understand?

 

[nbcrusader]

Are you joking?

This person is punished for breaking the law, not for the collective guilt of a nation. It´s incredible what you are saying! You are implying that Austrians throw Neonazis in prison because they have a guilt complex?


Grow up.

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?

 

[nbcrusader]

The contrary is the case. Believe me, I understand your mindset, but understand mine. Like I said, the Austrian politicians never admitted fault up until the 1980s!

The sins of a prior generation, that´s all good and nice, you know. Sure, I or an average 20/30 yr old Austrian does not personally feel guilty. It´s not that we´re on a guilt trip or something. But most of us think it is very healthy to remember the past.

Look at the reparations cases. When the Nazis put the Jews away, they also stole all their wealth: antiques, flats, etc., the Jews were "enteignet". Part of the property went to state institutions after WWII. And they never gave them back up until now! In 2005! Payments (and not the largest ones) for the survivors of the holocaust start. Every year some of them die. What about justice?

See, this is all connected. How a country deals with past crimes. What image its giving to other countries. We do not want to forget. These cruelties were so inhume they have to be remembered to serve as a warning example.

That said, I would really like to see the reaction of the American Media (or worldwide for that matter) if there was a new Nazi party in Germany or Austria. Scary, you know. Some people here are still scared of Neonazis. What about their rights? In that case, it is good to protect the victims. I don´t want to see Nazi groups on our streets. I have enough with other assholes, skinheads, hooligans, and a bunch of other morons.

Can "not forgetting" be addressed by education, rememberance days, memorials, etc.?

I think you open a dangerous line of thought to punish people because others are scared by their existence. Are we really a victim when someone else's ideas are repugnant?

 

[BonosSaint]

I find your take, Austria's take, on this more than interesting. It is a specific perspective I've had the luxury not to consider, although we deal with our own revisionists and struggle with our own accountabilities. I will think about this. I don't know that I agree with the imprisonment, but I think I understand better where you're coming from and what you have to deal with. Thank you.