You Are Free to Speak if I like it.
Jun 16th, 2008 by David Anderson
I will be giving a break to the hard left this week, but before I take a holiday from blogging, I want to give you food for thought. There is a U. N. Convention opposing hate speech. Several countries have signed on and some advocate we sign on to it. I of course oppose giving government the power to determine which speech is hateful and which speech is helpful. Make no law abridging freedom of speech means make no law.
Rasmussen reports put out a recent poll which shows 53% of Americans agree with my position while 28% support the speech codes. The undecideds break almost all to freedom side when they are reminded that it would be the government which decides what is acceptable and what isn’t. I think that is the Dah factor. I was really busy when you called–you said what? This is a serious issue which is negatively impacting the freedom in the countries who signed on to it. It reminds us that we must be vigilant in protecting our liberty not only from people with guns and bombs, but from people with nice sounding intentions. I like the analysis by Rasmussen.
Support for a ban on hate speech declines when voters are reminded that government would define what constitutes “hate speech.” Seventy-four percent (74%) say it is better to allow free speech without government interference than to let the government decide what types of hate speech should be banned. Only 11% disagree and would give government the power to decide what speech should be banned. These answers parallel findings in other recent Rasmussen Reports surveys showing that voters overwhelmingly view the government as a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests.
Opponents of hate speech legislation argue that it violates Americans’ freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and also opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions.
Most recently, they cite an ongoing case in Canada in which Maclean’s magazine is being prosecuted for publishing an article by an author who contends the rise of Islam is a threat to Western values. The article prompted a complaint from the Canadian Islamic Congress which, according to the New York Times, argues that the magazine should be forbidden from publishing such things, forced to rebut the original article and compensate Muslims for hurting their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.” A ruling from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is expected soon.
In a similar case, actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was recently fined $23,000 in a French court for “provoking racial hatred” because she criticized the manner in which sheep were killed in a Muslim religious ceremony.
According to the New York Times report, a number of other countries, including England, Germany, Australia and India, have laws against hate speech or have signed international conventions banning it. Now some U.S. legal scholars are debating whether similar steps should be taken here.
But U.S. voters are strongly opposed to any such changes in the law. Asked specifically about the Canadian and Bardot cases, 75% say U.S. law should not be changed to outlaw comments like the ones at issue. Eight percent (8%) say the law should be changed, while 17% are undecided.
I agree with you, David, although I think that the hate speaker should be held responsible if his/her speech incites a riot.
Hate speech brings to mind avowed racist/hate monger David Duke, who, when running in the runoff election for Governor of Louisiana, appeared on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press. Tim asked him to name three of the largest industries in his state ==> Duke could name not one. Duke went on to garner only 38% in his overwhelming loss.
That is the current state of the law and it suffices. I can’t believe I am agreeing with Perry so much today, but he is right on the money.
People like Tim Russert are an important reason we are still free. Imagine if Putin had to answer questions from Russert or O’Reilly. He would have never gotten away with half of what he did. For that matter imagine if Hitler….
Anyway the other post is the Russert one. I agree with both of you and thank for contributing.
I think that is why we made “freedom of speech” the first amendment. Not the 27th.
snark snark snark….
I think that the hate speaker should be held responsible if his/her speech incites a riot.</i?
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not necessarily freedom after speech.
Steve- I think that argument was settled when we repealed the Alien and Seditions Acts. Any speech can be misinterpreted. Now the courts have upheld the freedom of speech for very diverse groups of people who I vehemently disagree with.
The only way to get people to act virtuously and speak that way is to teach virtue.
although I think that the hate speaker should be held responsible if his/her speech incites a riot
This is fairly consistent with American First Amendment law — the “imminence” standard of violence which an incitement to riot could certainly be viewed as. (And, Perry, Duke getting 38%, despite his loss, is still a very unfortunate percentage, wouldn’t you say?)
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech — not freedom from criticism or hurt feelings.
Duke 38%, indeed an unfortunate percentage, Hube. I hope there has been improvement since then!
“The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech — not freedom from criticism or hurt feelings.”
Indeed, I wish more people would take that to heart.
Christian, there is a difference between “criticism or hurt feelings” and incitement to riot as an outcome from the exercise of free speech, I’m sure you will agree.
Perry,
I’m a huge Free Speech advocate, even as it pertains to many things I deteste I still support their right to Free Speech. As such I would have to read anything carefully that comes anywhere close to infringing on that right, regardless of its intentions.
We are guarenteed, among many other things, the rights to Free Speech and the Freedom to Gather Peacibly. Both are fundamental to our system of government, and could be stamped out rather easily with some minor wording changes.
For any who need a vivid picture painted: Imagine if you will, that you are an anti-Iraq type of person… now imagine, the Sedition Act was in place under this administration. I think that best sums up my concern.
A few years ago, some of the UN types were pushing for ‘rules’ that would ‘reform’ journalists. This was being pushed by lackeys of a varity if tyrants great and small.
Could we dare trust an institution as corrupt as the UN with any of our freedoms?
No