See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.
Source:
IHT
URL Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php
Published: Jun 11, 2008
Author: Adam Liptak
Post Date: 2008-06-11 22:36:55 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 271
Comments: 22
VANCOUVER, British Columbia: A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal. Things are different here. The magazine is on trial. Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean's magazine, the nation's leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self respect." The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out. Merkel backs Bush on Iran sanctionsHate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.Pakistan says U.S. airstrike killed 11 troops"It's hate speech!" yelled one man. "It's free speech!" yelled another. In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence. The Maclean's article, "The Future Belongs to Islam," was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called "America Alone." The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path. "In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment," Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called "The Exceptional First Amendment." "But in the United States," Schauer continued, "all such speech remains constitutionally protected." Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France. Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined €15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep. By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there. Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps "basically a Puerto Rican program." The First Amendment, Justice Eve Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase "the general level of prejudice." Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech. "It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken," Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, "when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack." Waldron was reviewing "Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech. But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections "in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism." In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court's insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence. The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article - or any publication - aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not. Lewis wrote that there is "genuinely dangerous" speech that does not meet the imminence requirement. "I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging," Lewis wrote. "That is imminence enough."
Poster Comment: Hate speech; coming to a country near you.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
there doesn't need to be a law. the pc pressure has already caused too many americans to self impose restrictions on their speech.
I agree. We're a nation of cowards, many to frightened to speak up for fear of attracting some government agency-types. They should be fearing us, but I live in a dream world it seems.
Christine, thank you for freedom4um :-)
Misters Waldron and Lewis think that the 1st amendment should be squashed. What a big surprise! Tough toenails. Suck lemons. God bless the Founding Fathers' wisdom.
awwwwww..thank you, X. i needed that. ;)
That is how society works. You can't force people to accept your beliefs.
christine wrote: "there doesn't need to be a law. the pc pressure has already caused too many Americans to self impose restrictions on their speech." And, JT wrote: "I agree. We're a nation of cowards, many too frightened to speak up for fear of attracting some government agency-types. They should be fearing us, but I live in a dream world it seems." ________________________________ I watched Keith Olbermann's Countdown-Jonathan Turley discusses articles of impeachment video (posted by by Itisa1mosttoolate) just now and it was simply amazing, right up to the point where Turley expressed incredulity about the Democrats' unwillingness to impeach BushCo. At that point both of these courageous patriots' knees buckled, and we all know why. By the time cowardly mind controlled Americans muster the courage to finger the culprits (Those goddam Eskimos) they'll be nothing left to save. I wish I could applaud Rep. Dennis Kucinch for his courageous introduction (and reading in entirety) of the new articles of impeachment against Madman Bush. But, the sad truth is even if he has no concern for his own safety he must know that the enemy will break his heart in other ways. (OKC trial judge Richard Matsch lost a daughter who fell into a volcano steam vent in HI. Here's what another has said about that:) " The spy-riddled monopoly press did not bring out an important detail. Namely, that Judge Matsch was intimidated into keeping these records secret to protect the Clinton White House cover-up of the multiple bombings of the Murrah Building as well as protecting the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and others of the spy agency Establishment. How? Judge Matsch's daughter was apparently murdered. She somehow fell into a volcano in Hawaii. This apparent murder made the Judge naturally distraught. The apparent murder example also was known to and intimidated the Federal Appeals Judges in Denver who after the McVeigh murder trial, conducted without these highly revealing records, upheld the District Court's guilty verdict of McVeigh. So both the trial judge and the federal appeals Judges in Denver had been coerced into going along with a cover up by murder close to home." As long as the president and the congress continue with unduly generous social security and Medicare benefits they'll continue to enjoy the support of the largest voting demographic. And, as long as the strip mining of the treasury continues unabated by the corporate owners of the media who are also connected defense contractors, we can expect no media exposes of the corruption. Our best hope is that China will stop buying 3 billion dollars a day of US generated debt paper. Once the monopoly money swindle collapses that should put a stop to the madness. I mean, if the military can't buy fuel for their planes, tanks and ships (and oil companies won't give them a line of credit once the petrobuck is worthless) then that'll be the end of the volunteer armed forces and, "our" well paid mercenary armies. God Bless America! And, remember, the secret to toasting tasty batwings is lotsa salt! (But, never cook over hobo campfires where rubber tires are used as fuel. It spoils the delicate flavor of the delicious avian members of the rodent community)
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
It is not only legal, people who say such things can even have a chance to become President. What is "hate" speech to some, is "truth" to others.
God is always good!
Hells bells, I learn something every day. I never knew this. I do recall Stephen Jones (McVeigh's lawyer) seemingly getting close to many tangential associations, only to get cold feet and back off when it was learned the FBI had more than one under cover operation within Elohim City. Anyway, back to hate speech. christine is right. Formal laws aren't necessary since the American people now openly police their own. Orwell was so right.
Orwell was hopelessly optimistic.
You're right. I see no Winston Smith. Lots and lots of hopeful change artists around tho. I wish I had a small touch of their delusion.
Don't want to eat bats...otherwise the mosquitoes they eat by the hundred thousands will devour you and your campsite.
Yes, the "representatives" are either bought off or intimidated to a one.
Your own being and thoughts and words are extremely powerful when used properly. Extremely powerful. World changing.
I don't see many besides them "bitter" folks policing Obama's racist speech.
God is always good!
Yep, every tyrant that comes to mind had the power to use words to herd people into their mental cages. Some things never change.
Yes, even when not used properly. Nonetheless, one's own being and thoughts and words are extremely powerful.
Just another symptom that the US is turning into a glorious people's republic. I have to admit, playing off man's inherent desire to control and dominate others is brilliant. There's no shortage of people like that in America today.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
Bill'O (O'riely) had Kusinich on and drowened him out every time he tried to talk. Just waiting for the YouTube of that.
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Our best hope is that China will stop buying 3 billion dollars a day of US generated debt paper. Once the monopoly money swindle collapses that should put a stop to the madness. I mean, if the military can't buy fuel for their planes, tanks and ships (and oil companies won't give them a line of credit once the petrobuck is worthless) then that'll be the end of the volunteer armed forces and, "our" well paid mercenary armies. you absolutely nail it. (got a recipe for squirrel?)
The dollar will keep its value by force, that's why we are in Iraq. The dollar will keep its value if we have to take over the entire Middle East's oil reserves. Having a monopoly on all cheap energy will make the dollar keep its value despite losing our manufacturing base to a large extent.
God is always good!
#2. To: christine (#1)
#3. To: christine (#1)
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
#5. To: X-15 (#3)
#6. To: christine (#1)
there doesn't need to be a law. the pc pressure has already caused too many americans to self impose restrictions on their speech.
#7. To: Jethro Tull, christine, rowdee, Peppa, Dakmar, angle, Itisa1mosttoolate (#2)
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.
#9. To: HOUNDDAWG, RickeyJ, all (#7)
" The spy-riddled monopoly press did not bring out an important detail. Namely, that Judge Matsch was intimidated into keeping these records secret to protect the Clinton White House cover-up of the multiple bombings of the Murrah Building as well as protecting the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and others of the spy agency Establishment. How? Judge Matsch's daughter was apparently murdered. She somehow fell into a volcano in Hawaii. This apparent murder made the Judge naturally distraught. The apparent murder example also was known to and intimidated the Federal Appeals Judges in Denver who after the McVeigh murder trial, conducted without these highly revealing records, upheld the District Court's guilty verdict of McVeigh. So both the trial judge and the federal appeals Judges in Denver had been coerced into going along with a cover up by murder close to home."
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
Orwell was so right.
#11. To: Esso (#10)
#12. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
#13. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
So both the trial judge and the federal appeals Judges in Denver had been coerced into going along with a cover up by murder close to home."
#14. To: Jethro Tull (#11)
I wish I had a small touch of their delusion.
#15. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
(Edited)
Formal laws aren't necessary since the American people now openly police their own.
#16. To: angle (#14)
Your own being and thoughts and words are extremely powerful when used properly. Extremely powerful. World changing.
#17. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
Your own being and thoughts and words are extremely powerful when used properly. Extremely powerful. World changing.
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#9)
Anyway, back to hate speech. christine is right. Formal laws aren't necessary since the American people now openly police their own. Orwell was so right.
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
#20. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
#21. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
As long as the president and the congress continue with unduly generous social security and Medicare benefits they'll continue to enjoy the support of the largest voting demographic. And, as long as the strip mining of the treasury continues unabated by the corporate owners of the media who are also connected defense contractors, we can expect no media exposes of the corruption.
#22. To: HOUNDDAWG (#7)
Our best hope is that China will stop buying 3 billion dollars a day of US generated debt paper. Once the monopoly money swindle collapses that should put a stop to the madness. I mean, if the military can't buy fuel for their planes, tanks and ships (and oil companies won't give them a line of credit once the petrobuck is worthless) then that'll be the end of the volunteer armed forces and, "our" well paid mercenary armies.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest