Are the west giving up on freedom of speech?

[DMB]

Or should we tiptoe round religion to avoid offending believers?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/pollitt

I was reminded of these last two examples by left-wing British journalist Johann Hari, who provoked the wrath of the believers when a column he wrote for the Independent, "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" was reprinted in the Indian newspaper the Statesman on February 5. Hari chronicled the decade-long campaign of Islamist theocrats (with the support of the Vatican and Christian fundamentalists) to insulate religion from criticism at the United Nations. This campaign has borne fruit: the UN Council on Human Rights has directed its rapporteur to busy himself not with attacks on freedom of speech but with "abuses of free expression," including "defamation of religions and prophets." Hari pulled no punches: "All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a 'Prophet' who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year-old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him." Hari's column caused--surprise!--violent riots; what is more shocking, and more unusual, is that Indian authorities arrested the editor and the publisher of the paper for "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims.

[David B]

I fear that we are leaning in that direction, and the freedom to criticise is something that needs to be defended.

This is apposite.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/06/13/laws/

As is http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/01/again/

David B

[DMB]

I fear that we are leaning in that direction, and the freedom to criticise is something that needs to be defended.

This is apposite.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/06/13/laws/

As is http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/01/again/

David B

I think Jesus and Mo is brilliant! I am a great fan.

[Barbarian]

Re the West giving up freedom of speech, this just in:Hungary's broad freedom of speech laws guaranteed by the Constitution render protection against racism almost impossible, a Council of Europe committee said in a report published on Tuesday.

Hungarian legislation penalises only the most extreme manifestations of racism -- such as incitement to direct violence -- and the relevant regulations are hardly ever applied, The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) said in a report.

"The very high level of constitutional protection afforded to the freedom of expression has to date made it impossible for the authorities to legislate effectively against racist expression [...] While it is true that legislation alone cannot turn racist attitudes around, the almost total absence of limits on free speech in Hungary complicates the task of promoting a society that is more open and tolerant towards its own members," said the ECRI.From here (http://www.politics.hu/20090224/council-of-europe-body-slams-hungary-for-lack-of-hate-speech-controls).

It's official, folks. The Council of Europe has just spotted a case of too much freedom of speech. Not that it matters, since the Council does not seem to have any power, it is not a body of the EU and it has been played for internal politics before.

On the flip side, some of the things my countrymen say as speakers on right-wing demonstrations and in internet fora are in their own very special class of Damn Disgusting. For demonstrations, it's the "we are at home in this country and anyone who doesn't feel like that should GTFO", while on internet fora you learn that Gypsies and the government are the puppets of Jews, the hangings shall commence shortly, that sort of shit. I do understand some of the anti-Gypsy sentiment, as it is rooted in simple fear, but none of the antisemitism can be explained like that. WTF is wrong with these people?

I don't have the faintest idea what the solution should be, though.

[Xrikcus]

I find it hard to put boundaries on freedom of speech. In this case Hungary strikes me as having the right position, it's far safer to have no boundaries than to have overly strict boundaries. In the same was as it is safer to have judges who let criminals off, than ones who imprison the innocent (whatever the Daily Mail and Boris think about "weak" judges). DMB, you feel that "incitement to harm" is a reasonable limit on freedom of speech, I think, based on our discussion before (feel free to correct of course)? How do we really define what incitement is in such a situation to put any boundary on speech at all?

[DMB]

I think people should be brought to book for exhortations like

Go and kill or maim the Jews!

I don't think they should be jailed for denying the Holocaust or even saying

All Muslims/Christians/Atheists/Hindus (fill in word of choice) are filthy perverts!

People should be free to be misguided and wrong OTW.

[Xrikcus]

Yes, extremes are easy to capture. I'm just unclear on how to define it in a way that's generally applicable. Relying on judges to make that decision is the usual solution, of course.