A war is raging against free speech

[MNBrewer]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/opinion/ghitis-free-speech/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

"So, the hateful video and the mass violence became an inescapable topic at the United Nations. And yet there was intense disagreement about what exactly was troubling about the events of the last few weeks and what action they demand.

In the view of some Arab and Muslim leaders, the time has come to draft new international rules limiting free expression for the sake of preventing insults to religions. The head of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, called for "criminaliz(ing) acts that insult or cause offense to religions."

This move to impose anti-blasphemy laws should come as a call to action for democracy advocates everywhere: Freedom of speech, a most fundamental of human rights, a cornerstone of democracy, has come under international attack."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Here on DU as well

A surprising number of posters are claiming "hate speech" justifies official/government suppression. What they fail to realize is that if TPTB ever get that kind of authority, dissident voices like DU will be the first to go.

[MNBrewer]

3. The calls here on DU for criminalizing speech are troubling, indeed.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

12. I think the only free speech I would ban is the calling for banning of free speech. nt

[villager]

30. Yup. The Thought Police here at the "Underground" have fallen into line rather quickly.

Makes you realize how tenuous these putative rights really are.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Pretty blatant examples of that here in this thread

Mostly with lower post counts, but their presence is chilling

[villager]

34. What's really sad is how their ask-no-questions apologetics mimic precisely the things they pretend

...to criticize in the other party, on other boards, etc.

[4th law of robotics]

52. That's how you get people to vote their rights away

promise them it will only be used against people they don't like.

[villager]

58. Right. And that the erosion of rights is okay because "our side" can always be trusted

...with the expanded, intrusive new powers.

[4th law of robotics]

59. Naturally

Also assume that the people you like and trust will always be in power.

[4th law of robotics]

124. You don't protect the rights of specific individuals

you protect all our rights, for everyone.

So when the ACLU argues that Nazis can march they aren't protect the rights of Nazis, they're protecting the rights of everyone.

That's how it works. All or none. You don't get to pick your friends and only give them freedoms, not here anyway.

[MNBrewer]

128. So, if that's true, you're willing to throw the 1st Amendment away, for good measure?

You're the hilarious one!

[MNBrewer]

143. Who else should we include in this list?

Salman Rushdie?
Richard Dawkins?
Christopher Hitchens?
Andres Serrano?
Madonna?
Hashem Aghajari?
Theo van Gogh?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
Gregorius Nekschot?

[friendly_iconoclast]

162. The idea that OUR fundies wouldn't use such laws against us is naive and dangerous...

[liberallibral]

93. Bingo!!!

Agree 110%!! Free speech is there to protect the speech we dislike, as well... So many on here do not seem to understand that......

[Zalatix]

150. But... but other nations ban blasphemy and hate speech! <--- sound familiar?

[porphyrian]

2. What the fuck?! Are you fucking serious?! n/t

[alp227]

97. Yes, free speech is the greatest asset to democracy.

Criminalizing dissent only enables evil.

[porphyrian]

106. I don't know, I like not having a state religion, too. n/t

[MNBrewer]

7. So you say

But 1. prove it; 2. I disagree

[JDPriestly]

43. Who gets to decide what speech incites to violence?

Do you just know speech that incites to violence when you see it?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

If the choice is saving the First Amendment or leaving the UN, I favor leaving the UN. If the world cannot live with our First Amendment it is doomed. The First Amendment makes it possible for people to express thoughts that offend religious leaders. It makes art and music and dance and science and expression, including religious expression, possible.

Think what it would have meant had Galileo not been silenced by religious leaders. Think what tolerance we would really enjoy if religious leaders could not dictate what can be said or not said in so many countries in the world.

Think about how much good our First Amendment has meant to us. Think about John Steinbeck and Henry David Thoreau and the great abolitionists and advocates for women. They all opposed the religious order of their time.

Barack Obama would not be president were it not for the First Amendment.

Martin Luther King would have died in prison were it not for the First Amendment.

And you cannot differentiate between speech that offends, say the Catholic Church or an Imam somewhere in the world and the speech that defends racism. For decades and decades, racism, slavery, cruelty to people of other races, was justified in the Southern United States by religion. Abuse of women is justified by religion. As is discrimination and persecution of homosexuality. The repression of artistic expression is justified by religion. And allowing religious expression includes, yes, allowing expression of ideas about religion that we find repulsive.

The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our nation. Without it we would be nothing.

The First Amendment has to be interpreted as protecting all kinds of speech that we do not like including pornography and racist speech.

You fight hate speech with love speech. And watch, the love speech will win out in the end. Because the reason people hate is that they want to be loved and respected and accepted. So in the end, the real solution is love speech. Speech that expresses tolerance and love.

The Imams and religious fanatics want to control others around them. They are fearful and want to control. If we give in to them and give up our First Amendment rights to them, we will soon be utterly under their control. As much as I support the United Nations, I would strongly support the idea that the US leave the UN if the UN advocates for the repression of speech of any kind.

Tolerance is the key.

[alp227]

103. THANK YOU!!!! Your post++

(++ is increment code in c++.)

Hopefully free speech nations like the US will dominate in the UN over the muslim theocracies.

[socialindependocrat]

56. So you mean, we shouldn't say anything mean about Adolph?

or is it allowed to utter hate speech against hate groups

Two wrongs don't make a right - in this case.

but we need to be able to speak our minds when we
see something we think is morally "wrong" in order to
bring it to light and discuss it.

[MNBrewer]

67. I see your point, but

Hate speech didn't slaughter them

[MNBrewer]

75. It went along with a LOT of other things

[WinkyDink]

147. duplicate.

[WinkyDink]

147. duplicate.

[WinkyDink]

149. GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED. Not some weirdo film-maker.

[MNBrewer]

88. Just so I'm clear here

Are you saying that "Innocence of the Muslims" is part of an organized movement with the goal of eradicating muslims from the face of the earth?

And that it could somehow lead to that?

[MNBrewer]

123. Your time line is wrong, for one thing

[markpkessinger]

100. On balance, I prefer to have my enemies free to speak their mind openly . . .

. . . that way, I know who they are.

[WinkyDink]

146. That would be "Adolf" to his friends.

[NYC Liberal]

61. Only if there is a direct call for violence and the crimes are imminent, not

a few days or weeks later.

[MNBrewer]

89. If, heaven forbid, George W. Bush were to be assassinated by a deranged killer

Would those of us who routinely refer to the ex-President as a War Criminal be culpable?

[NYC Liberal]

102. Speech that doesn't lead to imminent lawless action is not illegal

nor should it ever be.

[MNBrewer]

125. Well, YES, it's legal!

What do you want done about it? Whom do you want in jail next to the murderer?

[NYC Liberal]

138. There are already limits on speech.

Making threats (fighting words)
Slander
Inciting imminent lawless action
Child pornography
Commercial advertising
Trademark and copyright infringement

Those are all examples of "speech" that can and is regulated. Beyond those? No, I don't think restrictions are acceptable.

[liberallibral]

95. Actually, it IS FREE SPEECH...

Or anybody could riot and blame ANYTHING for INCITING them....

[alp227]

98. Remember this saying by Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."

[MNBrewer]

101. +1

[Codeine]

127. It most assuredly fucking is. nt

[Scootaloo]

137. Careful, you'll piss off DU's islamophobes

They love having an excuse to make their slavering support for bigotry look high-minded and acceptable.

[WinkyDink]

145. Do you recognize US jurisprudence as superior to any citizen's personal definition?

[Zalatix]

152. If you were right then Sarah Palin would be in jail by now, as well as Rush Limbaugh and a few other

But you're not right, so there we are!

[get the red out]

5. Dangerous stuff

Criminalize blasphemy and freedom is finished, not just freedom of speech. It would be a mudslide away from democracy, not a "slippery slope".

[99Forever]

9. Oh really?

Because you say so?

There are limits on HATE speech in a number of 1st world nations (Germany and the UK, off the top of my head) and has been for many years. Are you saying that their "freedom is finished"?

What pure "the sky is falling" nonsense.

Fear monger much?

[get the red out]

13. Can you imagine the abuse here?

We have our own right wing CHRISTIAN extremists who would be more than happy to misuse this for their own purposes. I worry about our own Christian extremists. The rest of the world can make their own laws, I don't have a vote there.

[99Forever]

20. You think there aren't religous zealots ...

... in other nations? Really?

Somehow they manage to deal with that problem successfully and still temper down the HATE speech. I guess we aren't smart enough to do that, eh?

Now..

.. gonna answer my original response to you or dodge it again?

[get the red out]

51. They are not the United States

And if they agree that those restrictions constitute freedom for them, fine, none of my business. We have many more religious zealots with quite a bit more power; thanks to our two party system. I wish it were otherwise, believe me. And I am very certain that you do not really want Southern Baptists electing representatives that will be voting on what they consider blasphemy to be.

Aren't those parliamentary systems with more than two parties, where religious zealots do not control nearly half of the elected officials?

Countries have their differences. We have freedom of speech. I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever been attacked on a Progressive message board for supporting freedom of speech. That's more than a little strange to me. I thought we were about real, personal freedoms unlike the so-called conservatives who criminalize everything they can. Is this still the same DU that is repulsed by the Patriot Act? Freedom?

[MNBrewer]

64. It's a brave new world

and we need to learn to shut the fk up, I guess.

[get the red out]

87. It's looking that way

[99Forever]

91. "attacked"?

Oh my!

Drama much?

I guess YOUR version of "free speech" is that YOU get to have YOUR say, but differing opinions don't.

Where have I heard that before?

[get the red out]

110. Where did I ever say that?

I certainly never said that other people don't get their say. LOL, and you are accusing me of drama..... please. My disagreeing with you is not the same as telling you to shut up. And yes, your tone is very much in attack mode, sorry if the truth does not set you free my friend.

[99Forever]

159. Your words:

" I can honestly say this is the first time I've ever been attacked on a Progressive message board for supporting freedom of speech."

[get the red out]

166. Still don't see where I told you to shut up

I did not say someone couldn't express their opinion, which was what you accused me of, yes you did attack me.

[jeff47]

24. And they're wrong to do so.

The antidote for hate speech is more speech. Not censorship.

The speech restrictions in Germany, for example, prevent a full discussion of what happened in WWII.

[Raster]

28. And that is part of their intention, to limit discussion on how Hitler and his evil....

...could enthrall a nation and it's people into becoming goose-stepping psychopaths en masse.

I completely agree: The antidote for hate speech is more speech. Not censorship.

[LanternWaste]

32. What specifically leads you to that premise precisely?

"intent... to limit discussion on how Hitler and his evi could enthrall a nation and it's people into becoming goose-stepping psychopaths en masse."

Beyond the post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc position, what specifically leads you to that premise?

[hauweg]

69. here's the specific german law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
It nonsense to assume that this law prevents a full discussion of the nazi time in Germany.

[jeff47]

156. From your link:

and speech justifying or glorifying the Nazi government 1933-1945

Hitler got the trains to run on time by taking care of those lazy bastards.

Ta-da! If I was in Germany, I'd have broken the law.

Now, such a minor statement probably wouldn't actually receive any sort of punishment in the real world. For now.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Significantly different cultures

The people there tend to trust their government quite a bit more and be more servile to them. In the US we are quite more individualistic and at times anarchistic. During my time in Europe the contrasts were at time stark and sometimes amusing. I don't see us going the way of Europe on this any time soon, and I think it is a good thing.

[99Forever]

44. Don't get the mistaken impression that I...

... think we will realize that sane restrictions against dangerous HATE speech are not just possible, but are a positive thing and institute them, in the near term or ever.

Like the gun issue, the absolutists makes this one another all or nothing, black or white choice by making the perfect the enemy of the much improved. I happen to think that we, as a people can strike a balance that allows for real honest discussion of all issues, but shuts down the ABUSE of communication for nefarious and evil reasons.

Apparently there are some that don't think we are smart enough to know the difference.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. It seems that in the US we are willing to risk offensive speech to guarantee free speech for the

rest of us. Other nations not so much.

Who sets the standards and adjudicates such speech is also key issue.

[99Forever]

83. Interesting ...

.. choice of words. Nowhere have I advocated that the standard be what is "offensive" to someone. That is far too arbitrary and virtually unenforceable.

In fact, I maintain that a higher standard of intent to cause actual harm is what separates real HATE speech from even mere angry words between opposing views.

[MNBrewer]

90. How are you going to establish that intent?

Other than a direct threat of harm, how?

Is saying "Homosexuals are dirty, disease-spreading, child molesters" causing actual harm?

or does it require that the phrase "and should be shot on sight" be included in order to qualify?

[99Forever]

96. Intent is established all the time...

... in this Nation. Can you say:


"A jury of your peers." ?

[MNBrewer]

99. I can say it

and will resist to my last breath your impulse toward criminalizing speech.

[99Forever]

104. Some speech IS criminal already.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[MNBrewer]

105. Some, yeah

You want MORE to be illegal. I say we're just fine the way we are.

[99Forever]

107. Well yeah.

What's your point?

[MNBrewer]

109. My point is

You want blasphemy to be illegal, I guess... which is fucked up.

[99Forever]

157. Where did I ever say I ...

... "want blasphemy to be illegal?" A link will work just fine.

But of course you can't post that link, because I NEVER said any such thing or even implied it. If you are just going to make up stupid shit, what's the point of even trying to have a conversation? I did ACTUALLY state what I believed sane limits should be, but you jumped right past them into Bullshitville. Should you get a little less emotional and reactionary, let me know and we'll give it another go. Okay?

[MNBrewer]

158. You want "hate speech" to be illegal. Which certainly would include blasphemy, right?

[99Forever]

160. No, not certainly.

Not even close to certainly.


I'm an atheist, I say there is no god or even a shred of evidence one has ever existed. Many would call that "blasphemy." But it isn't even close to being hate speech. It isn't an opinion I hold or use to incite violence of pain in other people, it is simply my belief.

[MNBrewer]

161. Should these guys have been prosecuted for "hate speech"?

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2001/09/You-Helped-This-Happen.aspx

[99Forever]

164. Why?

Did they knowingly endanger peoples lives by saying what they said? Did they say it with intent to cause harm?

If so, where's the evidence of it? Deciding whether to prosecute someone is a decision made by a Grand Jury, DA, etc. according to the evidence and the law. Since I only see a miniscule part of the whole picture, how am I supposed to make an informed answer to your strawman question?

[stevenleser]

111. I think saying things like that does cause actual harm

Saying things like LGBT'ers or Jews or Muslims or whatever else group are "dirty, disease-spreading, child molesters", particularly when done by a state or large groups inevitably leads to bullying against those groups at the very least.

That is what happens here in the US today with the gay community and it happened in Germany in the 1930s with Jews. It happened here in the US particularly prior to the 1960's with African Americans.

These statements are dehumanizing and villifying. Once a group of folks are dehumanized, its much easier to get past any ethical or moral restraints against harming them.

How do we reconcile that with Freedom of Speech? I am not sure.

I do know though that there is a difference between criticism and hate speak. There is a difference between specific issues with individuals and negative generalizations against all of whatever group. I think that is what the current laws in places like the UK, Germany, Sweden and Finland are getting at.

One other potential way of getting past this is to have something similar to the libel and slander laws where the truth is an absolute defense. This is just an example, but if someone was to say they are angry against the Catholic church because they do not ordain women priests, it would be allowed because its true and easily demonstrable to be so.

[MNBrewer]

112. Can someone saying "homosexuality is intrinsically disordered"

get away with it because it's part of their church's doctrine?

What if they quote bible verses from leviticus? We'll prosecute them?

[stevenleser]

126. There is an important distinction. Leviticus does not rant against the LGBT community

Leviticus makes statements about certain actions, the interpretations of many of which are not agreed upon. But it does not say that gays are evil. Inferring that from Leviticus is an interpretation and saying that could be construed as hate speech.

Again, I am talking through this because I am not sure whether these laws should exist. But in terms of the example you just raised, Levitics is absolutely not a justification for saying gays are evil IMHO.

[MNBrewer]

131. Why does saying gays are evil need justification?

Or one that will hold up in court? If a religious group has as part of their dogma that homosexuality is evil and those who are homosexuals are evil, and say so, why should they be dragged to court?

I think all religion is evil, and say so. When can I expect my summons to appear before the judge for "hate speech", or "incitement to religious hatred"?

I think we can all agree that stopping the bullying of GLBT kids is something that's important, but the degree to which "hate speech" feeds into that, and how penalizing such speech would affect the bullying is debatable. There are ways to get at bullying that involve MORE free speech, instead of restricting it.

[stevenleser]

135. I'm speaking to a potential law that I am talking through in our conversation.

Reality is, there is no justification for "X group is evil" and any laws designed to deal with hate speech would be violated by that kind of statement.

"All religion is evil" is a statement so broad and non specific, it would probably be outside the bounds of the law. Saying that specific religion is evil is another matter.

[MNBrewer]

139. Ok, well, i'm going to go on record as opposing that law, whatever it will be

I'm fine with hate speech remaining legal, so long as we're free to vigorously confront it with more speech, even if that is MORE hate speech.

[socialindependocrat]

80. No - I don't thing the Teabaggers know the difference

Every time there are limitations there are a continuum of recommended limits depending on one's conservative or
liberal stance.

With what I've seen transpire during this election process some
people really scare me with how they want to limit freedom of choice. A lot of people can't just live and let live, they need to control.

[DonCoquixote]

60. Yes

and here is a perfect example:

In France, when the Danish cartoon came out, there were riots. France's response to that was to ban all Muslima girls from wearing the Hijab (note: the headscarf, the Hijab is NOT the burka) and to band all Jewish boys from using the yarmulka. In other words, because of what a bunch of danes did to tick off some Muslims, the French used that as an excuse to oppress Jewish and Muslim children, in the hopes of making them more "french." Of course, the idea that a Muslim girl born in France being considered less "French: is one of those things that reminds you that as bigoted as America is, Europe has not quite kicked all her bad habits.

[laundry_queen]

140. I think the problem with discussion about this in the US is

that it's a country of extremes. Everything leads to slippery slope arguments. Here in Canada we have hate speech laws. So long as it's rarely used, I'm okay with it for the greater good. Us Canadians have an understanding about our responsibilities to our fellow citizens and it works just fine in our culture. No one is being arrested for dissing Stephen Harper (lolz half of parliament would be in jail). We still consider ourselves a free country - same as the UK and Germany. BTW I will never agree with blashphemy laws. Laws should never be based on religion.

In an individualistic society such as the US, any kind of hate speech law may not work. In the US it's everybody for themselves and this is where any laws restricting speech will eventually be used by the wrong people, especially because a lot of checks and balances within the government are no longer working. I used to get pissed when people here trashed Canada for these laws, but now I see the US is just a completely different set of values and is hyper-individualistic, which I think leads to group think (ironically) that any kind of law that might be for the greater good is somehow an infringement on freedom. Most of the rest of the world just doesn't see it that way and it's difficult to have these conversations because of American exceptionalism that is taught in schools. I wish we could have a good discussion about these kind of laws (which, probably, wouldn't work in the US even IF they ever got passed) without knee-jerk hyper-nationalistic reactions. But I do agree that a law like this, in the current American political climate would likely be a disaster.

[bongbong]

6. It's a tough issue

Compare the restrictions on shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's not a simple black-white problem.

Methinks the real issue is deeper than the already-deep issue of Free Speech. Maybe that religion is WAAAAYYYYY too important to too many people?

[cali]

8. no it's not. and yes, it is a simple problem.

It is not like shouting fire to criticize or mock religion or religious figures. not even a little bit.

[bongbong]

31. Assertions are fun!

> It is not like shouting fire to criticize or mock religion or religious figures. not even a little bit.

Well, a lot of people would disagree with that, and that's why it is a deeper issue.

[onenote]

39. Its not per se illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

For example, if there is a fire, or if you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire, its a perfectly legal (and indeed responsible) thing to do.

If there is speech that targets a specific group and is made with a reasonable expectation that it will incite violence against the targeted group (not BY the targeted group), it may be unlawful, but its a pretty narrow exception to the general prohibition against government imposed restraints on speech.

[bongbong]

42. Thanks

> For example, if there is a fire, or if you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire,

You made my point for me. "Reasonable" means it become a personal judgment call. I can envision plenty of scenarios where a completely above-board person would be 100% convinced there is a dangerous fire in a theater, yells "fire!", causes a stampede, and it turns out there was nothing or close-to-nothing. And that doesn't even include people who are 5%, 10%, or whatever mentally unbalanced doing the same thing.

> it will incite violence against the targeted group (not BY the targeted group)

That's another judgment call. What if there is speech that incites violence against a sub-group of a larger group? There are Sunni-on-Shia (and vice-versa) conflicts that get thrown into the general category of "violent A-rabs are evildoers!"

[Comrade_McKenzie]

10. I am against any type of restrictions on free speech...

An adverse reaction to free speech, no matter how hateful or ignorant, is a result of poking holes in the false, cushy reality bubbles of someone that feels entitled to live in a world that conforms to their utopian Kumbaya world.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. no one likes free speech when it's against them. how many times has the lgbt community come out

against some form of speech, declaring it hate speech?

[MNBrewer]

16. I'd say we do it quite often

But how often do we advocate banning it, or criminalizing it? Never? I've never seen it, anyway.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. i have many a times and i am pretty sure if you search the archives so will you

[MNBrewer]

66. You have done what?

Pointed out hate speech?

called for it to be criminalized?

Or both?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

82. seen people on du ask for free speech to be criminalized on the grounds of it being hate speech

and inciting violence against lgbt americans

[MNBrewer]

92. You have seen GLBT DUers state this?

Maybe I have seen it, but ignored it.

I'm a gay DUer and I DO NOT support criminalization of speech.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. And yet Fred Phelps has not been attacked, no one seeks to jail him, he is

countered with more speech and not with limits to his heinous speech. And his sort of speech, religious based attacks on others, would be allowed under the sort of anti blasphemy laws you see people advocating here those laws limit our right to say Phelps worships a false God and that his words are hateful and wothless. See, that's blasphemy, but when Fred says 'God hates' that's religion, and what these laws protect is religion.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. many many here and elsewhere have advocated against fred phelps free speech

when it affects you, you see it as hate speech. when it doesn't one can be more magnanimous

[MNBrewer]

71. I'm a gay man, and I support his right to his free "hate speech"

and I do consider it to be hate speech, but you know what? I also think he has done more to promote the advancement of GLBT equality in this country than to impede it. People see the ugliness of what he has to say and turn away from it in disgust.

Bryan Fischer of the AFA is a hate monger, but that's OK with me. I wouldn't have him censored or put in jail because of it. He needs to be countered by MORE free speech, maybe even by what he would consider hate speech. More speech is better! MORE MORE MORE!

[-..__...]

14. How do you say "go fuck yourself... and your religious views" in Arabic?

[JDPriestly]

48. The irony is that the film has caused people who otherwise would not be sympathetic to the Muslim

religion to defend it. People who are apathetic about religious issues are critical of that film.

[Oregonian]

15. I've had 3 posts hidden

Merely for insulting religion. We should get our own house in order before lambasting the "primitives" in the middle east.

[cali]

17. grab a clue, honey. DU is a private organization, not a nation and not a world body. duh.

and this sure as shit isn't about what YOU term as "primitives" in the ME.

[Oregonian]

21. I put the term "primitives" in quotes for a reason

"honey." And yes, DU is a private forum. Wow, thanks for the fucking newsflash. The point is that people with their magic saviors and holy texts who lose their shit when you question their fiction exist far more locally than you think.

[OldDem2012]

18. The real problem here is extremists of all kinds...

...who demand everyone else must agree with their beliefs on a variety of subjects to include religion, politics, free speech, and a other social issues.

The real trouble starts when those extremists gain control of religious and/or political organizations and begin attempting to enforce their definitions.

[hifiguy]

25. Well said. And welcome to DU!

"Blasphemy" is a victimless "crime." It always has been and always will be.

[MNBrewer]

19. Here's an example of what we would have to look forward to

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/rights-groups-condemn-detention-atheist-blasphemy-charges

[Jessy169]

22. Totally disagree with your point that "A war is raging against free speech"

That's what all the right wing lunatic posters over on Yahoo are saying every day.

Proposing that we prevent hateful and criminal communications developed in America and targeted at religious/ethnic groups overseas does NOT equate to "a war against free speech". That point of view is what the right-wingers chant all day long. Why? Because it is the right wing hatemongers who are the sole beneficiaries of the "right" to target their hateful communications at the groups they want to anger, demean and incite.

There is a war raging around the concept of free speech, and some of the right-wing "warriors" are posing as liberal/progressive advocates of free speech. Their intent is to confuse the issues, and to pollute the legitimate discussion of just how far does the concept of "free speech" go.

Organized hate speech is a right-wing tool. Name one liberal/progressive group that receives financing from billionaires or secret donors, and has the primary goal of promoting hate speech -- insult, slander, anger -- against a specific religious or ethnic group. Now list all the organized right-wing groups that get that financing and have the clear objective of promoting hate speech against targeted ethnic/religious groups -- that list is long.

The debate about American excesses of free speech is a legitimate one, and that debate does NOT equate to "a war raging against free speech".

[MNBrewer]

23. If you want to limit the discussion to the video "Innocence of the Muslims" and the reaction

go ahead, but this is wider, and has been going on longer than that.

The concept that there can be "excesses of free speech" is nonsensical, and I say this as a gay man who has experienced hate speech aimed at ME.

The solution isn't censorship, or criminal punishment. It's MORE free speech. The American Family Association gets to spew hate speech against homosexuals, and we, in turn, get to publicly talk about how they are a hate organization, and to refute their claims, and call them bigots.

[Jessy169]

27. Definitely bigger than just the "Innocence of Muslims" video

Right wing hate speech is:

1) Growing, organizing, extremely well financed
2) A useful tool for invigorating "the base" voters with fear and anger
3) A useful tool for terrorizing minorities here in America and abroad, keeping them in their place
4) Generated and encouraged and co-opted by individuals/politicians/others who have ulterior motives

Left wing hate speech is:

1) Raging against the machine
2) Fighting back against the right-wing hatemongers -- fighting fire with fire
3) Generated/created by individuals, not well-financed groups, out of a sense of idealism and anger at injustice, not with the ulterior motive to incite violence and repress minorities or religious/ethnic groups

HUGE difference between right wing and left wing hate speech.

[MNBrewer]

29. So you plan on criminalizing right wing hate speech?

[Jessy169]

36. Me? "Plan" to criminalize right wing hate speech?

I'm one of the little people, a minor and almost insignificant cog in the wheel, just a software engineer who has an opinion. Me planning on doing anything that big would be Walter Mitty territory. I just feel obligated by my sense of right/wrong to promote discussion and state my opinions on the excesses of freedom of speech in America -- and there are many, many excesses. I'll leave it to the important people to make the plans. My own personal point of view is that the laws we have and the rulings/decisions we have on first amendment free speech are just fine the way they are. We only need another ruling or two that recognizes the significant development in the free speech area of consideration that the internet and other communications technologies has made. America is the land of the free and the brave, the home of the lunatic fringers and trigger happy cowboys. We'll never be able to "limit" hate speech in America -- it is the American way -- we take the good with the bad sides -- we deal with it. But we might give some consideration and reasonable/logical debate to whether or not it might be better to somehow/someway contain American hate speech inside America, or at least not allow those individuals who are intent on causing trouble from targeting groups in other countries -- the "Innocence" video being just one example of that, and what the U.N. folks are talking about.

[MNBrewer]

37. I'll be a little more explicit, then

Would you like to see what you call right wing hate speech taken on by the government in some way? Censored? Criminalized? Prosecuted?

Or are you just talking, and have no particular wish to see anything happen one way or the other?

[Jessy169]

46. As stated previously

My own personal point of view is that the laws we have and the rulings/decisions we have on first amendment free speech are just fine the way they are.

We only need another ruling or two that recognizes the significant development in the free speech area of consideration that the internet and other communications technologies has made.

And...

There are legal opinions written by legal scholars, posted on the internet and readily available, that make the case that EXISTING laws are adequate to prosecute the perpetrators of the "Innocence of Muslims" video under federal law.

I would like to see new laws or interpretations of existing laws that limit the "freedom" of anyone in America to create and distrubute communications intended for international target audiences, when those communications are clearly meant to incite anger and hatred in the target audience. Whether or not this is possible or even adviseable, I'll leave to the experts.

"Your" first amendment right to incite anger and hatred in target audiences overseas puts "Me" in greater danger whether I am at home or travelling abroad, and makes people hate "Me" and wish to harm "Me" because I am American and therefore guilty by association to the creators of "Your" free speech.

[MNBrewer]

53. There are legal opinions written by legal scholars that have been used to justify the use of torture

based on existing laws. To protect "you".

[Bluenorthwest]

50. Obama at UN "the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression,

it is more speech."

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so.
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views -- even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened.
We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete.

The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world, with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that's how we respond.

[JDPriestly]

130. Yes! War against free speech does equate to a war raging against free speech.

[Spider Jerusalem]

35. To be perfectly fair, the American idea of absolute freedom of speech is not the norm...

even among democracies.

In most European countries there's a specific offence for "incitement to religious/racial hatred" that's prosecutable; hate speech is not protected speech. And in Germany it's a crime to deny the Holocaust or espouse Nazi ideals.

Presuming that the rest of the world should have American ideas on absolute freedom of speech, including in the above contexts where democracies outside the US already draw clear lines, is frankly a bit arrogant and ignorant.

For country-specific laws see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[MNBrewer]

38. I think that question has been turned around in your formulation

The proposition is not that the rest of the world conform to US ideals of free speech, but that the rest of the world (including the US) should conform to the ideals of free speech that exist in the islamic world.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Well no...

really, the proposition seems to be that the US conform to the limits on acceptable free speech that prevail in most of the rest of the world (including every other democracy). You won't be prosecuted for blasphemy in Europe, but incitement to religious hatred is something else again (and is part of the reason that Quran-burning nutter Terry Jones is banned from the UK).

[MNBrewer]

47. That's not really what is being proposed

and it's not really what is in actuality in Europe.

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16253537,00.html

"In 1994, city authorities in Trier banned the performance of a musical in which one of the characters, "Maria" - who had been inseminated by sperm on a toothbrush - called the birth of her child a "virgin birth," in reference to the Immaculate Conception of the New Testament.
The legality of the ban, which was based on Paragraph 166, was confirmed by a number of courts around Germany. But in most cases regarding such "artistically" justified provocations, most German courts see no punishable offense.
If, however, an action that offends religion is not able to invoke artistic freedom or satire, Paragraph 166 can be used. In 2006, a man was sentenced to one year probation and social work, after he disseminated sheets of toilet paper with the word "Koran" printed on them."

http://www.businessinsider.com/geron-pastitsios-2012-9

If incitement to religious hatred is to be a crime, then every TV preacher will be in jail, because their religion IS hatred.

[4th law of robotics]

54. Worldwide the norm is that women aren't really people

and that giving people a say in their government is a bad idea.

I think sometimes it's ok to break with the herd.

Presuming that the rest of the world should have American ideas on absolute freedom of speech, including in the above contexts where democracies outside the US already draw clear lines, is frankly a bit arrogant and ignorant.

It'd be nice if they allowed the US to have American ideas on absolute freedom of speech. These blasphemy laws they're proposing wouldn't be limited only to other nations.

[Comrade Grumpy]

77. And "they" will enforce the global blasphemy ban with black UN helicopters.

[4th law of robotics]

78. I doubt it will actually go through

I'm simply stating the intent, not the likelihood.

[Jessy169]

68. Totally agree with your post

American hate speech is the exception. We are exceptional. We allow our craziest and most hateful citizens to broadcast their hatred and incitements directly at susceptible target audiences overseas. Protecting their right to do that is questionable, and not adviseable, IMO.

[DonCoquixote]

70. To be fair

Yes, Europe does have such laws, in part because there are still many Nazis and other hate groups there that would go into full gear. Not that this stops them much though, as sadly, my little hometown of tampa has a number of presses owned by Germans, where they publish Nazi propaganda, which gets printed by people in Germany using laser printers and internet connections. Illegal yes, but they would need to ban anyone from printing so much as a recipe for Strudel off the internet to stop it.

And while the American way is not the best for everyone, you cannot deny this goes beyond a simply nationalistic view of Free Speech,this is about whether or not we reward people who actually DO violence. If we rewrite our laws because one group of people start burning and breaking, then EVERY group will learn that they can burn and break to get what they want, ESPECIALLY the more dominant groups, who will glaldy use the defense afford to minorities to preserve their majority power.

Simply put, do you want the Mormons to howl "religous prosecution" every time we ask them why they keep funding anti gay legislation?

Do you want the Catholics to howl that whenever we ask them why they let priests molest children?, or why THEY keep funding anti gay legislation, or anti abortion laws?

YOu know tey already DO, but the only thing keeping them at Bay is the first amendment; let it be a crime to offend a church, and the churches will cultivate lawyers just for the purpose of suing people into oblivion. They know they do not need to win a case to destroy someone who cannot afford lawyers. L. Ron Hubbard, head of Scientology, used to brag about this in a policy called "fair game" where he said the purpose of lawsuits was never to win in court, but to exhaust the funds of the target.

I realize that we in America do need to look at the laws youmentioned, and see what is good, what will nto work,and make the best of it, but frankly, since religions do nto care about national borders, you cannot hope to ban a type of speech and naively think that forces with the money, organization, and dedication of relgions willnot find a way to work your own laws against you.

[Edweird]

167. >Implying that the US wasn't founded by people escaping 'the norm'.

We have liberties here that other countries do not. If being oppressed is your preference then you have plenty of options to choose from.

[leftynyc]

45. Let them clean up their own houses first

Hateful stuff - even geared towards children - on Israel and Jews coming from all over Muslim countries. It's only when their ox gets gored they howl. I wont give up my free speech for anyone.

[quinnox]

55. I'm starting to think an anti_Islam video should be released every week

Let's see how long they can keep the perpetual outrage on for...they are bound to get tired of the rioting eventually.

Of course, there should be no restrictions on speech in America, and a quick reading of the constitution will show this is so.

[MNBrewer]

57. hehe. Really! I mean when ISN'T this an appropriate headline

"Widespread Outrage Rocks Muslim World"

[Zalatix]

154. That's taking things too far...

[surrealAmerican]

73. Are the "Arab and Muslim leaders" who are proposing this law ...

... willing to be prosecuted for things they say that may offend Hindus, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahai, etc.?

[MNBrewer]

79. Vatican Walks A Fine Line On Trying To Combat Blasphemy In UN

It's not just muslims who would see this done. Theocrats of Christian persuasion would go along with it as well.

http://www.aina.org/news/20120927185821.htm

A joint declaration of a Catholic-Muslim dialogue at the Vatican in 2008 stated that the "founding figures" and the "sacred" symbols of religions "should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicule."

[4th law of robotics]

81. Bwhahahahahahahahaha!

No.

It's only blasphemy if it offends a real religion (ie "theirs&quot .

[get the red out]

113. There's the problem

That is the problem in a nutshell. Curbing hate speech can seem logical until one realizes that we have no idea what will, in the end, be considered "hate speech". I remember when we were all, rightly, making fun of Sarah Palin have that preacher pray over her to protect her against "witches". Would making fun of that video ever be considered hate speech? It might. Depends on who makes the rules.

[4th law of robotics]

114. The standard seems to be that A) the person being mocked geniuinely believes

what they're being mocked over and B) they don't like being mocked.

So if someone were to argue sincerely that they believe the world is 6000 years old anyone who ridiculed that notion would be guilty of hate speech.

Yeah I can live without that law.

[MNBrewer]

115. Some religious beliefs RIGHTLY deserve mockery!

[4th law of robotics]

116. Beyond the "don't be a dick to each other" proclamations that every religion touches on

I'd say most religious beliefs deserve mockery.

[MNBrewer]

118. I agree with you

What if I say "god is a turd clinging to the asshole of a two-headed dog that is in orbit around the black hole at the center of the Andromeda galaxy".

I bet there are some people in Egypt that would want me dead for "insulting allah" or something.

[4th law of robotics]

121. People have concocted some strange beliefs about god

everyone knows that the only true Elder Gods have lain sleeping for eons in the sunken city of R'lyeh which makes all this arguing over new and likely invented gods pointless as Cthulhu will soon awaken and blanket our entire world in madness and destruction.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Soon . . .

[Zalatix]

155. +100,000,000!!! Well said!

[Alduin]

85. Fuck religion.

[Iggo]

86. Religion. (n/t)

[alp227]

94. About the author:

"Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/ correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." Follow her on Twitter: @FridaGColumns."

[on point]

108. Time for the Muslim world to discover the Enlightenment. Claims of blasphemy sure sign it NEEDS it!

No roll back on free speech. What a stupid notion. If the point of view / person cannot stand challenge and ridicule, then it is a sure sign that it is dogma and NEEDS to swept out.


In terms of life cycle:
The life cycle of the Muslim belief system is behind that of the Christian one. But they need to catch up to Enlightenment.

Christians were busy with the same inquisition nonsense in their 12th century, but finally wised up by their 18th.

Muslims are now in their 13th century, but should have learned from others and lept forward to the 18th.

The world is not interested in going back while until they catch up.

In other words, get over it.

Claims of blasphemy are a sure sign the subject is worth the ridicule

(BTW different than false claims which might be subject to slander....)

[GoneOffShore]

136. Absolute Kick for your reply.

[WinkyDink]

142. What is needed is for the modern world---including DU 100%--to LAUGH IN THEIR FACES.

[GoneOffShore]

163. Been laughing at the religious for years. Doesn't seem to help.

I'll continue to do so.

[Marrah_G]

129. Yeah- not going to happen

If they decide our women need to be covered up or they will riot because they find it fucking offensive and some sort of affront to their god... what then?

This is a slippery slope that Americans will never stand for.

[Go Vols]

132. Are Catholics more civil/tolerant than Muslims?

Seems like Louis CK would have been killed over this video if not.

I don't think we should be censoring unpopular speech in any form,especially to calm religious nuts.

I am not into religion and am aware that not all Muslims are fanatics that riot and kill.


Not suitable for work

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ec_1271046068

[WinkyDink]

151. WTH? Leave Catholics out of this. It isn't like war-mongers today aren't PROTESTANT.

[Go Vols]

153. It was only an example of

other religions being more tolerant of unpopular speech.I am not attacking you or the Catholics.

[Waiting For Everyman]

133. Or clerics lying on tv and radio to incite riots over religion could be made illegal.

The fault lies with the rioters. It's up to those countries that tolerate such violence to educate their people and control that via intelligent laws. This is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages.

[GoneOffShore]

134. Blasphemy laws are a way to restrict criticism of religion which rightly deserves criticism.

[WinkyDink]

141. STOP IT! STOP IT! [tm Ann Baby]

[Junkdrawer]

144. Nah. The abuse of "free speech" by a fanatical few is causing the world to consider...

limits on hate speech.

Which is a shame.

I prefer to condemn the hate speech and not silently condone it by focusing on the calls for censorship.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021431908

[tama]

165. US Government actions against Occupy movement etc. nt.