Free Speech...

[Ron Obvious]

I'm posting this here because I'm really not in the mood for a lengthy argument in GD, but man, I'm getting mightily depressed by the number of people (including here on DU) who don't seem to understand what free speech is or why it's important to defend unpopulair speech in particular. I'm referring, of course, to the anti-Islam movie and the fallout in Libya and Egypt.

And then I read this, in a US embassy press release:

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others" (Source: http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html)

Christ on a bike, have we learned nothing in all these years since the bill of rights was written?

I wish this Christopher Hitchens video were mandatory viewing in civics class in this country. Fat chance, I know.

[cleanhippie]

1. Wow. Just wow.

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others"


How does one "hurt" the beliefs of another?

Do you think this was written far away from the irony machine?

[skepticscott]

5. Well, however one does it

it certainly happens, as evidenced. But one person's condemning the message that another person uses their freedom of speech to express, or labeling it as "offensive", is not the same thing as saying that they should be prohibited from expressing it. On the contrary, it sends the message that the appropriate response to views that you may disagree with or find offensive or abhorrent is never violence, but more free speech. Those of some religious persuasions have never accepted that lesson, though.

[Warpy]

2. Free speech also covers hate speech from stone bigots

but those stone bigots need to own their hate speech, not use fake names and hide from the consequences of it.

It just means the government can't step in and stop it. It doesn't mean we the people can't reject it. Or dole out the occasional knuckle sandwich, real or rhetorical.

[redqueen]

3. This habit of putting religious beliefs in a special, protected category of ideas

which cannot be criticized, questioned, etc. has to stop.

[awoke_in_2003]

8. In one of those threads...

I was told that insulting a religion should not be allowed under the law. Of course, I then insulted Mohammed, Jesus, and Abraham

[JNelson6563]

4. Is this the statement issued by those under siege?

[YankeyMCC]

6. "Crist on a bike"

LoL - I hear that so rarely, cracks me up every time

[Ron Obvious]

14. I suppose it's more British

Even after 33+ years in this country, I still occasionally slip into Britishisms. Back home they think I sound like a Yank and ascribe all sorts of positions to me, like support for the death penalty and firearms, that they think go along with that, and I even find myself supporting those positions. It's weird!

I should have said: Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, of course!

[dmallind]

7. Even forgetting for a moment the situation, this statement is not against free speech

In fact, with typical diplomatic nuance, it affirms free speech while condemning how someone used it. Saying person X was hurtful in doing Y and that the embassy rejects Y in no way implies that X should have no right to do Y - a right the statement itself avers is universal.

Now obviously we SHOULD be able to make home movies showing Muhammed buggering pigs if for some unimaginable reason we considered that to be entertaining or interesting, without thinking some primitive superstitious loons might try to protect their imaginary friend's imaginary honor by killing completely unrelated people. However, anybody not under a rock lo these last few decades knows that those loons are ready and waiting. That does not mean we should refrain from criticizing Islam, even with harsh satire (I would hardly have written the above if I thought this); it does however mean we can't blithely pretend that putting such stuff into the public realm is likely to be harmless.

[awoke_in_2003]

9. I miss that guy. nt

[onager]

10. Good on-topic Twitter from Ricky Gervais

We have to stop this recent culture of people telling us they're offended and expecting us to give a fuck.

http://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/224132733717315585



Some more good stuff from him here:

Posted on 9/11: I don't think atheists should get involved on "today of all days.” We all saw what happened when religion "got involved."

http://twitter.com/rickygervais

[Odin2005]

11. I was skewered in GD for daring to defend free speech.

[Ron Obvious]

12. I noticed...

Yeah, I noticed. That's partly what prompted my post. I can't believe how many people on DU people wanted to lock up or prosecute Terry Jones or even throw him to the mob. Even today, on NPR, I heard the movie-makers condemned far more than the rioters.

It's almost a subtle form of racism, it seems to me. Like muslims are wild animals that can't be expected to behave or something.

[Odin2005]

13. I agree with you on the racism.

In that thread mentioned that a particular poster must think the rioters are stupid.

[Gore1FL]

15. Whose Free Speech is being threatened?

Who is the government shutting down from doing so?

[Ron Obvious]

16. At the moment...

At the moment, nobody. But we should treasure our first amendment and not apologise for it.

When I see how little the concept of Free Speech is appreciated and understood, and when I see people openly calling for 'hate speech' laws, I get worried about its future.

[Gore1FL]

17. Who is calling for hate speech laws? Who is apologizing for the First Amendment? n/t

[Ron Obvious]

18. Who's calling for them?

Who's calling for hate speech laws? An awful lot of people in the various GD threats seem to want to have the film maker prosecuted and don't seem to value free speech much. Hate speech laws exist and are being passed in many countries, including Canada and in Europe. In many countries, such as Austria, you can be locked up for merely publishing a factually incorrect history book that offends people's feelings.

I once heard a German politician say "Of course, you have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can hurt people's feelings". No, that's exactly what it does mean, you moron.

The UN, under pressure by oil-rich Muslim states, are pushing for blasphemy laws as well.

Our first amendment has thus far protected against such excesses, and will hopefully continue to do so. However, when a shockingly large number of people here don't seem to understand or value free speech, I get worried.

As for apologising for our first amendment, it seems to me that the embassy's statement does exactly that, and I have heard no vigorous defence of free speech by any of our politicians. Just a lot of hand-wringing.

[Gore1FL]

19. I'm sorry I am not convinced there is a problem.

I have no knowledge of any person in authority suggesting anti-hate-speech legislation. If it was introduced and managed to pass, and managed to get signed into law, it would be challenged and found unconstitutional.

As far as apologizing for the first amendment, that never happened.

Free speech doesn't mean the government can't disagree with you. Free Speech does not mean "speech without consequence." Free speech is that government cannot stifle or punish you for expressing yourself.


This is the text of the embassy statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Where is the apology?

[Ron Obvious]

20. The first amendment

I have no knowledge of any person in authority suggesting anti-hate-speech legislation. If it was introduced and managed to pass, and managed to get signed into law, it would be challenged and found unconstitutional.

In light of what's happened to many of our fourth amendment protections, I'm not so sure about that anymore. Warrantless wiretaps, FISA, border patrol checkpoints within 50 miles of the border, full-body scanners, asset forfeiture laws, etc. Our constitutional protections don't seem to mean as much as all that if the threat is deemed sufficient.

We may differ on our interpretation of what constitutes an apology, but seriously now:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.

Where does any US government official get off "condemning hurting religious feelings"? Also, when they say "offending believers of all religions", they don't mean it. They only mean those particular religions whose believers number a large number of bellicose morons likely to cut up rough. They're not talking about mocking Mormon magic underwear, for example.

Not yet, anyway.

[Gore1FL]

21. They didn't apologize.

They condemned the guy for being a douche nozzle. They didn't say it wasn't his right to be a douche nozzle. This puts the First Amendment at as much risk as Rahm Emmanuel saying that homophobic perpetrators of chicken vivisection* don't share Chicago's values.

* I don't believe this is verbatim

[Ron Obvious]

22. Apology

As I said, we may differ in our interpretation on whether the statement constitutes an apology. It's likely that it's weaselly Diplomatic speak that was intended to sound like an apology without technically being one. However, claiming that free speech was being "abused" to hurt religious feelings certainly smacks of a shameful appeasement to religious nutters to me. It implies that they had a right to be offended, and that the people who made the film were wrong to do so.

It may be a crappy little film this time. It might be a schoolteacher giving the wrong name to stuffed teddy bear next time, or it might be a book deemed anti-islamic (e.g. Satanic Verses). It might be a Danish cartoon or a critical investigative documentary about the subjugation of women in Islam (Theo van Gogh), or an 11 year old girl with Down's syndrome -- it doesn't seem to take much to set off a violent mob in some places.

To appease violent nutters is to empower them. Give them an inch and all that; self-censorship isn't a solution to prevent violence. If "Life of Brian" is brilliant satire (and it is), why would a theoretical "Life of Achmed" be offensive hate speech to be condemned? And yet, not naming any names now, there would be a lot of people both on DU and in our government who would condemn such a film.

It's academic, of course. Nobody today would have the guts to make such a film and no major film studio would touch it for fear of violence.

The nuts have achieved that already.