Geert Wilders in the dock.

[Azrael]

So people should just get a thicker skin?

No, they should recognise that giving the state vast and dangerous powers is the greater evil.

Yes and that was later thrown out so what is your point?

Obvious, I would have thought: it should never have been brought. The threat of it will intimidate many people from expressing perfectly legitimate views.

The state has always had powers to suppress views it doesn't like. Free speech is a myth.

There's degrees of state abuses. Free speech is much less of a "myth" in the USA (and indeed, Britain) than it is in other jurisdictions.

 

[sleaterkinney]

No, as I described a page back, I think they'd have a squalid civil war between true believers and the slimy Griffin-type wing. At the very least, you'd get more extreme parties, and the BNP split over whether to support them.

These are, by and large, not rational individuals.

Yeah, they're nuts

Erm, that's exactly my point: they wouldn't have ditched the overtly racialist views so smoothly without "hate speech" laws.

No, they did it to get elected.

They already do. It's not a criminal offence (so far as I know) to argue that paedophillia should be made legal.

I thought promoting paedophillia was illegal.

 

[Azrael]

They don't not say really obviously racist things in public because they're afraid of getting locked up. They don't say them because they know it's bad for the party's image.

The two feed into each other. Mr Griffin, I'm sure, would be moderate regardless, but having the law on his side can only help his case with the, well, more knuckledragging members.

 

[Azrael]

I thought promoting paedophillia was illegal.

Must have missed that one, anyone have a link to the law in question?

Regardless, what's to be gained by banning paedophiles from advocating the legalisation of their crime? Is there even the remotest chance that anything approaching a majority of public or politicians will be converted? NAMBLA are a sick joke stateside.

 

[TomPaine]

And they get a little _publicity_ from the odd one or two times that there have been legal issues; they don't necessarily get _sympathy_.

I think they get a a lot of publicity to be honest but I guess we will have to agree to differ on that.

 

[Fuchs66]

I'd advise speaking to someone from The Netherlands about this one I did today and it was an eye opener.

 

[sleaterkinney]

No, they should recognise that giving the state vast and dangerous powers is the greater evil.

It's not a vast and dangerous power, it's a balance we have to strike, but I don't want to live in a society where people are free to abuse other people.

Obvious, I would have thought: it should never have been brought. The threat of it will intimidate many people from expressing perfectly legitimate views.

It was some stupid pc who got carried away, if that stops you then you can't have been that bothered anyway .

There's degrees of state abuses. Free speech is much less of a "myth" in the USA (and indeed, Britain) than it is in other jurisdictions.

Exactly, degrees, why is that?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The two feed into each other. Mr Griffin, I'm sure, would be moderate regardless, but having the law on his side can only help his case with the, well, more knuckledragging members.

Makes bugger all difference. BNP members, even councillors, do say stupid things anyway and it isn't the fear of prosecution that stops them doing it more often, it's that either they've been picked because they _won't_ or that they deliberately try to avoid it. The general racism involved in their platform does not fall foul of legislation and is quite obvious to anyone who looks. They're not "moderate", they just don't froth in public.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think they get a a lot of publicity to be honest but I guess we will have to agree to differ on that.

Well, convince me, what publicity have they got? It's hardly as if there have been many cases at all.

 

[TomPaine]

It's not avast and dangerous power, it's a balance we have to strike, but I don't want to live in a society where people are free to abuse other people.

But WHO defines the balance? The government of the day? Lawyers on the rich mans coin?

Also I believe attacking somebody in public verbally can be considered assault under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1988. I just did a quick search and it says it is an offence to use abusive, threatening or insulting words language or behaviour with the intention of causing alarm distress of harrassment.

 

[agricola]

As I said a page back, it's about defending a right, not a particular person or opinion. I don't know enough about Mr Wilders to comment on the allegations, but plenty more sympathetic cases will arise. To be effective you must defend them all.

Indeed, but since Wilders is being prosecuted for calling for the Koran to be banned, it is a bit odd to defend someones right to free speech where the person is demanding someone elses free speech be curtailed, especially when that person is doing it in an overtly political context.

That said, Wilders shouldnt be done under hate speech legislation, he should be done for trying to limit other peoples rights (which isnt an offence, but it should be).

 

[Azrael]

It's not a vast and dangerous power, it's a balance we have to strike, but I don't want to live in a society where people are free to abuse other people.

If you want "abuse" outlawed you have to let the state censor opinions, which is a vast and dangerous power. You can't have it both ways.

"Abuse" is very emotive but vague. You can ban harassment of specific individuals: the USA has anti-harassment laws aplenty. You can stop people standing in the middle of a shopping centre and ranting: that's a public order matter. You can, in short, regulate where opinions are delivered, and make it quite possible for those who want to avoid vile opinions to do so.

It was some stupid pc who got carried away, if that stops you then you can't have been that bothered anyway.

Well, I imagine that quite a few 15-year-olds might be discouraged by that. I thought you were all for sensitivity to people's feelings?

Exactly, degrees, why is that?

Sorry, don't get your point here.

 

[TomPaine]

Well, convince me, what publicity have they got? It's hardly as if there have been many cases at all.

Because the few cases there have been where splashed all over the media. Even that bastard over here David Duke used it in his publicity:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/bnp-free-speech-trial-rallies-rescheduled_1277.html

 

[sleaterkinney]

But WHO defines the balance? The government of the day? Lawyers on the rich mans coin?

The people then the Government.(in theory anyway)

Also I believe attacking somebody in public verbally can be considered assault under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1988. I just did a quick search and it says it is an offence to use abusive, threatening or insulting words language or behaviour with the intention of causing alarm distress of harrassment.

And you think it shouldn't be an offence, the law should offer no protection from abuse?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Because the fee cases there have been where splashed all over the media. Even that bastard over here David Duke used it in his publicity:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/bnp-free-speech-trial-rallies-rescheduled_1277.html

Who reads David Duke's website? People who are already supporters. All this stuff does is reinforce the base, it doesn't get outside sympathy or anything, certainly no more than all the times they say "you can't talk about immigrants without the PC police clamping down" (and then proceed to talk about immigrants).

 

[Azrael]

They're not "moderate", they just don't froth in public.

Exactly, and Mr Griffin can say, "Look, we say what we think and it's off to chokey; but play it smart and we can get elected and change things."

The BNP's racialism is obvious to people posting here, but for ignorant people who don't follow politics beyond the evening news, an occasional tabloid, and a rant down the pub, it isn't. The case for free speech doesn't rest on that ragbag collection of misfits and criminals, but the failure of "hate speech" laws to get rid of them is certainly a factor.

Even if the BNP are entirely uninfluenced, they're still there, and more popular than ever, which completely undermines the pragmatic case for incitement laws.

That said, Wilders shouldnt be done under hate speech legislation, he should be done for trying to limit other peoples rights (which isnt an offence, but it should be).

I don't see why that should be a criminal offence, provided it's delivered as an abstract argument.

 

[TomPaine]

And you think it shouldn't be an offence, the law should offer no protection from abuse?

Obviously not hence I pointed out that there is already a law in place that protects against that .
You don't need "hate speech" laws to protect people from attacking each other.

Who reads David Duke's website?

I was merely pointing out that it has gained them publicity they probably wouldn't have had, and as you say actually helps to re-enforce the wingnuts base. There was also plenty of mainstream coverage on the BBC, ITV, and in the newspapers.
As a side note, what is obviously worrying is that scum like Dukes lot sympathise with the BNP (and probably have links, I'm sure somebody more knowledgable on that front could confirm that) whilst the core are obviously using things such as that court case to suck in voters.

 

[TomPaine]

The people then the Government.(in theory anyway)

OK and since when where the people asked where they thought the limits of free speech should be? I've never had a ballot through the door asking my opinion on this? My local MP has never canvassed for opinion on where the limits of free speech should be?
What happens if the government rejects it? Or if the public vote deciding that "lefties" views should be censored? Or Homosexual magazines should be banned?
Or what happens if the public vote say the Tories back in and they ban any discussion of homosexuality in schools for example?

 

[Azrael]

Or what happens if the public vote say the Tories back in and they ban any discussion of homosexuality in schools for example?

I wish opponents of free speech would grasp this point: you don't decide how the state uses its power. Give the government power to protect people from offense, and it's open season.

 

[untethered]

I'm fully in favour of limitations on speech. Not only do I think they're inevitable by one means or another, but they're actually desirable.

Firstly, let's deal with a red herring. Yes, limitations on speech can be an abuse of power, but then so can any use of power. There is a material difference between limiting speech in a democratic society and doing likewise in a totalitarian one. The aim of the former is to serve the greater good; in the latter to serve the clique in power. The fact that a power could be abused in principle is not an argument against considered, democratic and legitimate use of power. We just need to keep our elected representatives on a very short lead, which we should be doing anyway.

Now to the question of harm that may be caused by speech or virtue that may be threatened by it. It's very clear to me that pornographic images, incitement and verbal harassment are speech just as much as abstract arguments and political discourse. A truly free-speech society would not seek to limit these things. Yet even in a place such as the USA there are ongoing arguments about which kinds of speech should be "constitutionally protected" and which should not.

I accept that people are not automatons but neither are they immune to influence. If they were, why attempt to speak to them at all?

 

[untethered]

I wish opponents of free speech would grasp this point: you don't decide how the state uses its power. Give the government power to protect people from offense, and it's open season.

This implies that people have the ability to withhold this power from government. If they can do that, they can ensure that government enacts limitations on speech in a reasonable, proportionate and acceptable way.

 

[TomPaine]

I'm fully in favour of limitations on speech. Not only do I think they're inevitable by one means or another, but they're actually desirable.

At least you pin your colours to the mast. It is much easier to discuss the idea of free speech with somebody who has a solid stand point on it rather then adopting the "I'm not a racist, but.." approach. There seems to be a lot of people who say "I believe in free speech but..."

It's very clear to me that pornographic images, incitement and verbal harassment are speech just as much as abstract arguments and political discourse. A truly free-speech society would not seek to limit these things

I guess that depends on how you define free speech. I believe an action against an individual that infringes their space, their body or prevents them from going about their day to day business is not free speech. Why? Because somebody is not free to participate, but is being forced. Neither is pornography if it is not consenual.

Producing a movie which people can choose to watch that insults a religion without directly forcing somebody to participate in it is a consenual act on the part of the producers and the viewers. Attending a speech where a person speaks out against Christianity is a consenual act, walking up to a Christian and swearing in their face and insulting them is not consenual on the part of the person recieving the insult to their face.

That is where I stand on the situation.

 

[TomPaine]

Question: Out of interest those of you who support limits to freedom of speech, would you ban all of the below, or some of the below, and if so which ones based purely upon speech and not actions?

1.) Iron Maidens song "Number of the Beast" for insulting Christians?
2.) NWA for using the word "Niggaz".
3.) Motley Crue for being mysogonist in "Girls, Girls, Girls".
4.) Atilla the Stockbroker for creating the song "Guy Fawkes table" for insulting Nu-Labour.
5.) .. and finally Skrewdriver.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Question: Out of interest those of you who support limits to freedom of speech, would you ban all of the below, or some of the below, and if so which ones based purely upon speech and not actions?

1.) Iron Maidens song "Number of the Beast" for insulting Christians?
2.) NWA for using the word "Niggaz".
3.) Motley Crue for being mysogonist in "Girls, Girls, Girls".
4.) Atilla the Stockbroker for creating the song "Guy Fawkes table" for insulting Nu-Labour.
5.) .. and finally Skrewdriver.

What's your position on, say, false advertising, libel and Redwatch?

 

[Azrael]

This implies that people have the ability to withhold this power from government. If they can do that, they can ensure that government enacts limitations on speech in a reasonable, proportionate and acceptable way.

Not so. The power of the state is blunt, and restrictions must be equally blunt. Put it like this: a fence can keep a fox out the pen; but try telling it which chickens it can attack once it's inside.

I'm fully in favour of limitations on speech. Not only do I think they're inevitable by one means or another, but they're actually desirable.

Well I thank you for your honesty.

The qualitative distinction between a despotic and democratic society is false. It's a matter of degree. Most rights are stripped "for the public good". (French Revolution, to name but one.) And it's a politician's perception of "the public good", anyhow too nebulous a concept to be of any practical use.

Pornography isn't expressing an opinion, hence not a matter of free speech. Harassment can be an issue of free speech if the law's used to regulate the content of words, and the US Supreme Court strike down such statutes: but if you're stopping people hassling a specific individual, you're not regulating the content of their words, just their target, so again, not free speech. Incitement to violence is again not an opinion; it's an action (an attempt to commit a physical criminal act by proxy). It's no more a free speech issue than a soldier ordering a massacre would be.

No, people are not immune to speech, but our entire legal system is predicated on the idea that people be expected to control themselves, and any criminal act is done by choice. If people are so feeble that a wicked idea can override that control, then all sorts of totalitarian policies are justified.

 

[Azrael]

Producing a movie which people can choose to watch that insults a religion without directly forcing somebody to participate in it is a consenual act on the part of the producers and the viewers. Attending a speech where a person speaks out against Christianity is a consenual act, walking up to a Christian and swearing in their face and insulting them is not consenual on the part of the person recieving the insult to their face.

That is where I stand on the situation.

As John Stuart Mill so wonderfully said: opposing the corn laws is free speech; opposing the corn laws before an armed mob outside the farmer's house is incitement. Context is everything: in my book, it's an issue of free speech only if the content of the opinion is being censored where there exists no aggravating factors.

 

[butchersapron]

A more apt (apter?) specific class riddled example of a universal you could not find.

 

[Azrael]

Probably so, but I'm beguiled the utter tweeness of it.

 

[TomPaine]

What's your position on, say, false advertising, libel and Redwatch?

You could have done me the honour of answering my question rather then responding with another . So do you support the banning of the music I listed or not out of interest?

False advertising - To summarise my opinion on this (advertising is a crock anyway but..) I have no problem what so ever with the advert, it can advertise what it likes. The problem is not the advert, the problem is the shop/company/product does not match what was advertised. Therefore the store/company etc. is not being prosecuted for the advert, but for not/never stocking the product thus in essence breaking a contract that goes simply:

"Buy this car it does 100MPG" when it doesn't. If they have a car that does "100MPG" then that isn't a problem.

Libel - I'd prefer to see libel laws replaced with something else personally. They get abused and are an example of where the law can be seriously twisted by a corporation if needed to shut people down.

Redwatch - I am right in thinking this site takes photos of people, uploads them with their addresses if possible and then encourages people to beat the shit out of the people in the pics right? If so then this is basically a form of terrorism and is not a concensual act of the part of the victim.
Those orchestrating it should be tried like Hamza was or any other nutter intent on doing people harm.

 

[tangentlama]

There should be no trial. What idiocy. And fuck Geert Wilders and fuck islam. And the Dutch state.

And if he had made a hate-film, pulling out selective quotes from the Talmud, or the Torah, using them out of context, especially in order to demonise Judaism, and then called for an end to Judai-ification (bagel shops, Synagogues, separate Jewish schools), this man would be a 'what' exactly ?