Is Free Speech Free?

[IronDuke]

In some societies, such as the United States, the right to speak one's mind and associate freely is gaurenteed by law. It is considered an inalienable right, and cannot be taken away. (Arguments about Bush's new policies notwithstanding)

In a place such as Germany or Austria, however, some things cannot be said, even if it a person's honest opinion. For instance, people who express doubts about the Holocaust can actually be imprisoned. People who display the swastika are arrested and thrown in jail. This is, of course, a product of the 20th Century history of those countries. They never, ever, EVER, want to risk the chance of their countries being hijacked by hatred as they were in the 1930's and 40's.

Ernst Zündel wrote "history" (I use the term loosely) books in which he questioned the death toll of the Holocaust and argued that the Allies committed war crimes in Germany just as horrible (like Dresden). He was deported from Canada to his native Germany in 2005. Upon arriving in that country he was immediately arrested for his opinions, and is currently still on trial for "inciting racial hatred."

A more mainstream historian (inverted commas hesitatingly removed) named David Irving is in similar circumstances. He had written dozens of books which can be loosely labelled as "revisionist" histories of the Nazi Era. He was charged by the Austrian government with "trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust." He was given a ONE DAY trial, and promptly sentenced to three years in prison in February of this year.
In 1998, Irving sued historian Deborah Lipstadt for libel. Lipstadt had reviewed many of his works and concluded that Irving "is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence." After an epic trial, involving some of the most famous historians in the English speaking world as expert witnesses, Lipstadt was found innocent of libel.
However, even after being SUED by Irving and having her professional and personal life disrupted, upon hearing that Irving had been thrown in jail for what is essentially a thought crime, Lipstadt said "I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship… The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth."

Make no mistake, I find the ideas of Zündel and Irving disgusting. I just find it even more disgusting that people can be thrown in jail for voicing their opinions, whatever they may be.

My questions then would be: Is it ok to limit free speech? Where do you draw the line if you do? Is it better to let anyone say anything and have those who disagree offer reasoned arguments and evidence to rebutt those claims, as Lipstadt seemed to advocate?
Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Isn't there risk in establishing some "untouchable" subjects, free from scholarly criticism?

 

[Onhell]

I was always told my freedom stops where the next person's starts. pertaining to speech (or anything else really) I'd say people can say whatever they want, but not try to cram it down other peoples' throats.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

In some societies, such as the United States, the right to speak one's mind and associate freely is gaurenteed by law. It is considered an inalienable right, and cannot be taken away. (Arguments about Bush's new policies notwithstanding)

I'd just like to clarify a point that is often understood. The actual text of the First Amendment is:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

This means that the government cannot restrict speech. Private entities can do so. This is why, for example, owners of websites based in the US can restrict what other people are allowed to post on those websites.

So free speech in the US is not as all-pervading as some people like to think. If your personal expressions are being suppressed, and it's not the government doing it, you have no legal ground for complaint.

However, the idea of free speech is very powerful, and most American institutions try to uphold it whenever possible.

 

[IronDuke]

I'd just like to clarify a point that is often understood. The actual text of the First Amendment is:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

This means that the government cannot restrict speech. Private entities can do so. This is why, for example, owners of websites based in the US can restrict what other people are allowed to post on those websites.

I never said it was otherwise. And clearly, my post is about governments taking action against people because of what they have said and written, not private entities. But your point is well taken.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

I never said it was otherwise.

My apologies if my post was misinterpreted. I never meant to imply that you, Duke, had any misunderstanding about this concept. However, I have seen complaints from many people akin to "Help! I'm being repressed!"[sup]1[/sup] when the complainant clearly had no idea about the legal limits of free speech. And such complaints always annoy me. Your post simply reminded me of that.


[sup]1[/sup]To be read with your best Eric Idle impression.

 

[Anomica]

I think free speech is one of the major foundations of every modern-day democracy. There is a problem, and a need for (self-)restraint sometimes. In Sweden, like in most countries, you're free speech is limited when it comes to discriminating against different groups, like sexual or religious minorities. We've had an Iranian radio station that spoke a lot about the holocaust and advocating anti-semitism, and they had to close down. Newspapers can't write whatever they want and so on. But I don't have a problem with that.

I'm allowed to say anything I want as long as I don't violate someone else's rights. I don't believe in censor ship and I really think that in most cases it's better to allow people to have their say and refute them, instead of ignoring them. We've had a racist political party in Sweden during the elections that none of the traditional parties would debate with and they won quite a few municipal seats around the country. Next election, in 2010, they'll probably get a seat in our national government if we don't take the fight with them. They claim that they say what the "average joe" thinks and when nobody answers them they gain ground. But it's a very difficult balance...

 

[IronDuke]

However, I have seen complaints from many people akin to "Help! I'm being repressed!"[sup]1[/sup] when the complainant clearly had no idea about the legal limits of free speech....

[sup]1[/sup]To be read with your best Eric Idle impression.

hehehe. I know what you mean....sorry if that last post sounded mean, dude.


...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

 

[XoRRoX]

Free Speech in public room must always be legal.

But when we talk about private (wedsite as an example), then the owner can delete any message, that he want's to. That's because of the private right of ownership.

Well, that is the liberal way to do things

But the private right of ownership is not always tolerated, which is very sad.

 

[Raven]

hehehe. I know what you mean....sorry if that last post sounded mean, dude.


...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

'Come and see the violence inherent in the system!  Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
'Bloody peasants!'
'Oh!  Did you hear that?  Dead giveaway, that was!  You saw him repressing me, didn't you?'


Personally, I would always advocate for free speech.  I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I would fight for their right to say it.  However, I think there is a difference between free speech and over-tolerance.  Whenever someone's 'free speech' begins to infringe on someone else's human rights, then I believe it is justified to limit their speech.  Particularly in cases which are likely to affect not one person, but many.  If someone you work with makes anti-Semitic comments in the workplace, that may be a matter for your boss to sort out, but if, like Anomica said, there are public broadcasting corporations transmitting anti-Semitic sentiments, then it is a serious matter to be sorted out by the government involved.  Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you have the right to be an ignorant bigot.  I would like to point to the case of the leader of the British National Party (for all intensive purposes, a British 'Nazi Party'), Nick Griffin, who was recently cleared in court of inciting racial hatred at BNP party meetings.  Because, technically, he was spouting crap about Islam, which is not a race...he's still a prejudiced prat, though, and it disgusts me that people can show such ignorance about the past.  Still, I suppose there will always be someone like Nick Griffin or Lorax for every IronDuke or Perun.

 

[Natalie]

In a place such as Germany or Austria, however, some things cannot be said, even if it a person's honest opinion. For instance, people who express doubts about the Holocaust can actually be imprisoned. People who display the swastika are arrested and thrown in jail. This is, of course, a product of the 20th Century history of those countries. They never, ever, EVER, want to risk the chance of their countries being hijacked by hatred as they were in the 1930's and 40's.

I live in Austria and this law that prohibits people from expressing doubts about the Holocaust is definitely necessary here. I dread to think what would happen if this law didn't exist, especially as Austria already as it is has issues with its right-wing political parties such as the FPÖ and the BZÖ (does the name Jörg Haider ring any bells?). Whatever the media coverage on Austria in the rest of the world, the rest of the world doesn't get to know about many of the racist scandals that Austrian politics suffers from.

 

[Albie]

It must always be the speaker that takes full responsibility for their words, but never should they be muted. Anyone should be allowed to criticise, discuss, argue or express their views about anything, but to abuse this right (by, for example, incite racial hatred etc.) is wrong.

 

[Raven]

It must always be the speaker that takes full responsibility for their words, but never should they be muted. Anyone should be allowed to criticise, discuss, argue or express their views about anything, but to abuse this right (by, for example, incite racial hatred etc.) is wrong.

Straight and to the point, as ever, Albie.  Really, this sums up what we're discussing perfectly.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

...to abuse this right (by, for example, incite racial hatred etc.) is wrong.

Yes, it is morally wrong. However, the issue is free speech from a legal point of view. And those highly offensive types of speech are exactly what free speech laws are supposed to protect.

One of the most famous such cases in US history was the American Nazis in Skokie, Illinois. From Wikipedia:
"Skokie is the traditional home of a sizable Jewish population, although in recent years the town has significantly diversified and much of the Jewish population has moved to other suburbs. In 1977 and 1978, members of the National Socialist Party of America (an offshoot of the American Nazi Party) attempted to march through Skokie. The NSPA planned to rally in Marquette Park, Chicago; the city reacted by placing a ban on all demonstrations in the park. Seeking another venue, the NSPA chose Skokie. On account of the large number of Holocaust survivors in Skokie, it was believed that the march would be disruptive, and the village refused to allow it. The American Civil Liberties Union intereceded on the behalf of the NSPA in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, and the march was permitted to proceed under court order but they were not permitted to show or wear the swastika."

What the above quote fails to mention is that the marchers were allowed to show banners with anti-Semitic slogans and give out their literature. The swastika was the only thing banned. Few people liked the result, but putting up with disgusting crap is the price of free speech.

 

[Onhell]

I just realized... Who needs the first ammendment when you have the second? (a right to bear arms, not to be confused with the th right to arm bears). When you have a gun people will listen.

 

[Albie]

Yes, it is morally wrong. However, the issue is free speech from a legal point of view. And those highly offensive types of speech are exactly what free speech laws are supposed to protect.

The issue is also "Where do you draw the line?" I came from the angle that the speaker must be responsible for what they say and that is where the line should be drawn. Now, while I wholeheartedly agree that the not everyone will engage their brain (or indeed, show a little tact) before they speak/act (as in the example both you and Raven gave), most people do. So by stipulating certain guidelines/rules/etc. to what you can and cannot say, is suggesting people need not take the responsibility - rather the law should. People should be giving credit for been able to argue/discuss/express with some sort of intelligence - although not all of us can do so; therefore do we suppress the people just to silence the fools?

 

[IronDuke]

I just realized... Who needs the first ammendment when you have the second? (a right to bear arms, not to be confused with the th right to arm bears). When you have a gun people will listen.

Did someone mention "the right to bear arms"? I really don't see why people make such a big deal out of this.