Yes, the First Amendment does protect some ‘hate speech’ which would fall foul of European law. But even in the US not all speech is free.
Uh, did you mean to say “Remind me to be unmoved when your government decides that it doesn’t like what you say.” ? I thought that might be it, but I wasn’t sure.
Anyway: I don’t know about France, but here, free speech is generally constitutionally protected:
(The Norwegian constitution is in large part inspired by the American, IIRC.)
The anti-racism law makes it illegal to through speech or other communication made public threaten, disparage, or expose to hatred, persecution or strong disrespect a person or group of persons on the basis of their faith, race, skin, or national or ethnic background. Same goes for homosexuals.
I think the vast majority of Norwegians would consider the possibility of the government instituting a greater restriction on free speech extremely far-fetched: there is absolutely no political culture that would support it, it’s basically unenforcable, it’s against the constitution, and parliament would toss out the government that tried it VERY quickly. I think most also see a distinction between banning speech that can be very harmful for groups that are already vulnerable and greater restrictions on free speech.
:oops: Um…yep, that’s it. Oops.
I don’t see why, honestly. You can’t disparage someone’s faith, race, skin, national or ethnic background, or sexual preference. Is it a huge leap to say you can’t disparage someone’s political affiliation? Political views? Group association (e.g., what if I’m a Goth, Punk, etc…what if I’m a gang-member)? Income level?
I think the big difference is just one of how you look at the problem. America–or at least, the American Constitution–takes the position that the best weapon against bad ideas is good ideas, not censorship. I won’t speak for what the Norweigian (or European) position is, but whatever it is, it’s clearly at odds with the American one.
Such a slipperly slope isn’t valid. You choose your political affiliation, political views, group association, etc. However, someone’s race, skin, background, or preference are all given to you upon birth; you’re born with them and have to live with them. The only iffy article in there is that of faith… but such an article is generally considered such an inherent part of you that it can almost be considered alongside the other instrinsic traits listed.
[quote=“Rywill”]
I don’t see why, honestly. You can’t disparage someone’s faith, race, skin, national or ethnic background, or sexual preference. Is it a huge leap to say you can’t disparage someone’s political affiliation? Political views? Group association (e.g., what if I’m a Goth, Punk, etc…what if I’m a gang-member)? Income level?[/quote]
Well, first of all, that’s a pretty fast and loose translation, and not all of the words are entirely equivalent. “Jeer” might be closer than “disparage”, I don’t know. There are certainly pretty few convictions from the law, and the Supreme Court in particular seems determined to err on the side of free speech.
I would say that it’s a pretty big leap, yes. You’re no longer talking about groups that have very serious problems with racism and the like, and who need protection.
Personally, I agree, and I don’t think there’s such a large difference as you seem to think. The reasoning is, I suppose, thet countering racism with good ideas is all very well and good in theory, but that’s often little comfort to the victims of racism in practice.
You don’t choose your political views any more than you choose your faith. And I’ve met lots of people who claim they don’t choose their group affiliations, either–“I don’t choose to be a Goth. I am a Goth.” Just like sexual preference–outsiders often think of it as a choice, but those in the minority say that it’s inborn. And are you saying poverty is a choice? Pretending that there’s a bright line between “I’m outlawing bigoted speech” and “I’m outlawing classist speech” or “I’m outlawing affiliation speech” doesn’t get us anywhere. There’s no bright line, and if we’re going to start making those laws, we need to face up to where they go.
It also leads us down the opposite path–should all immutable traits be considered equal? What if someone publishes something disparaging tall people, or blondes? Should mutable traits always get no protection? Does that include stuff like religion? Place of citizenship? Place of residence?
I’m not sure what you mean here. I picked “disparage” out of your list of verbs describing (quoting, I assumed) Norway’s law.
Well, obviously I agree with you that they need no protection, since I think nobody needs protection from mere speech. But I don’t see why you would think, say, Asians need protection, but the poor don’t; or that Muslims need protection, but punks don’t. To me, Asians and Muslims have a lot more ability to speak for themselves and protect themselves.
See, I think this really illustrates the difference between the way I look at this, and the way you do. I absolutely agree that people are harmed by racist speech, and that the harm is only partially alleviated by supportive speech. The difference, though, is that I think people have a fundamental right to be racists, if that’s what they believe, and that they have a fundamental right to express their beliefs, no matter how much that might hurt the feelings or esteem of others. Just like someone can come up to me and say I’m short and ugly–both immutable traits–no matter how much that might upset me. Is it wrong for someone to call me short and ugly? Hell yeah. Should they go to jail or pay a fine over it? No fucking way.
Nice try, Ben, but I made it clear that I had no personal knowledge about it one way or another, and was simply repeating, without comment, a detail published in one of the articles about her. Furthermore, I made no characterization as to whether or not her speech deserves to be protected.
What I did do, however, was infer in a sarcastic manner that a characterization of her speech as ‘racist’ does not appear to be lacking factual basis.
What’s the problem, Ben? Are you lacking in reading comprehension skills, or do you lack the confidence to address statements as they are written, without trying to warp them to make them easier to assail?
\
This is a very American attitude… which is not to say that it’s wrong or right, but it does mean that Europeans (at least the nationalities that I’m familiar with) don’t have to worry about the slippery slope you’re talking about… the line is very clear to them.
That whole Goth thing (or any other group or political affiliation thing) of “I don’t choose to be a Goth… I just am a Goth” is not a necessary equation. They can say those words if they want, but at the same time they could stop wearing black clothes and moping around any time they want to. Similarly if I heard a good argument, I could suddenly become a raging Reagan fan, or Ben might start loving Clinton. Change is definitely possible, so I definitely consider those choices. I am kinda confused why religion isn’t included in the “choice” category, but whatever.
As for the “gays choose to be gay”, that has been so thoroughly debunked by anecdotal and scientific evidence that nobody who isn’t dogmatically attatched to the idea still believes it. So I think it’s a pretty safe bet to inclue “sexual orientation” in with race, background, etc.
Of course, establishing that the slippery slope is illusory doesn’t mean that your fundamental objection to the European position is wrong; you seem to be in favor of fighting ideas with ideas even if they are a clearly separate category.
As much as I prefer the US first amendment, it takes one word to explain why Europe has these speech codes:
Hitler.
Now don’t get all Godwin’s Law on me; the holocaust and the mass butchery of World War II the root reasons they adopted these laws in the post-war period. I still disagree with them and think they’re ripe for abuse, but I can understand where they’re coming from. World War II killed 56,000,000 people; taking out China, Japan, and the US, you get 42,000,000 people. You can draw a shaky straight line from the eliminationist, dehumanizing rhetoric of the period to the ensuing slaughter.
Here in the US I really don’t think we understand the scale of the carnage; we just weren’t close enough to it, losing a comparatively paltry 500,000. I think if the US willingly marched along to the mass hysteria of the 30s and killed and lost millions, followed up by a chance to redraw our constitutions, we’d think differently. Respect for letting people going beyond the boundaries of what’s polite is one of the many aspects of a society dependent on security, first and foremost; when you wake up from a sleepwalking nightmare and find out you butchered half a continent, you’re going to have some…well, I don’t want to call it paranoia, because they think it’s perfectly rational and ethical, and I don’t think I have any right to tell them otherwise.
If we were talking about China, yeah, obviously, give me a break. But context matters.
Again, I don’t like the european speech laws and wish they’d get rid of them. But like a neighbor wasting money on a useless, expensive security system after his wife is brutally killed and raped at home, I can understand where they’re coming from.
I don’t think that’s at all true, Jason. (Although I agree that your use of the H word is not a thread-ender.) Europe has long had a very different relation with free speech than America. There was always a strong feeling in Europe that “you can say what you want as long as you don’t cross this line”, and what that line was depended on the times and places. Perhaps this particular free speech line was caused by Hitler, but there has always been a line of some sort in all European countries that I can think of.
Sure, they’ve always had “don’t criticize the King” laws, but the speech codes are in a different cultural class entirely.
Fair arguments–I don’t agree with them, but it’s definitely something where reasonable minds can differ. I am a little surprised that you say you could become a raging Reagan fan. I mean, realistically, isn’t it true that there’s actually no argument that would persuade you? Isn’t it true that your fundamental values are just way different than Reagan’s, and aren’t going to change?
That stuff aside, though, I still say that the European system (if I may call it that for shorthand) makes no sense. Religion = immutable, but politics = not? Homosexuality = immutable, but poverty = not? I don’t get it. And again, there are distinctions made between immutable traits. Discrimination because someone is black = forbidden. Discrimination because they’re short = okay. Discrimination because they’re ugly = okay. So it’s not some totally logical bright-line system. It’s pretty arbitrary.
Remind me again why this isn’t in P&R?
Because Old Man Gravy’s a pussy who can’t handle P&R. :wink:
I don’t think that many pro-gay people in Europe much care about the “born gay” theory, actually. I know I don’t.
When and by whom? This has been brought up on QT3 before and I can’t recall anyone ever producing science backing up the assertion. Anecdotal evidence, sure. Do most people believe it? Sure. Hard science? Not so sure.
In a sense. I’m fairly well informed on Reagen’s actions, the ideology and reasoning behind and actions, and so on. Therefore, the chance of me hearing new evidence or reasons that put the Gipper in a good light (in my mind) is almost nill. However, in ten years enough of my views might have changed where I start to think the Gipper was a pretty good guy. Such long term change is, of course, very possible in religion as well.
There is a difference between religion and political views, though. Political views be separated and changed individually, while religious views generally have to be changed en masse. Tomorrow I might decide I’m in favor of the death penalty, a month from now I might decide that taxes should be lower, not higher, then in a year I might decide gun control is bad. Voila! A neophyte conservative is born! There’s no similar gradual change that can occur with religion, which generally makes them much less fluid. I’m not going to stop eating pork, then later start saying Muhammad was the prophet, then later declaring my devotion to Allah. Well… I might, but only if I was trying to be really insulting to Muslims.
That stuff aside, though, I still say that the European system (if I may call it that for shorthand) makes no sense… It’s pretty arbitrary.
I kind of agree with you. When I gave my arguments about how it made sense, I was making sense of it in my own mind, and Ander’s rejection of the “born gay” theory (or at least him saying it didn’t matter) means that the logical reasons I gave aren’t those that truly justify the system. And even with my semi-defense of putting religion on the “untouchable” list, I still think, from a logical viewpoint, it shouldn’t be there at all.
However, not all legal systems need to be strictly based on logic. (in my opinion) It should be an important component, but I believe that throwing in illogical elements if they help the law better cope with the reality of crimes is a good thing. In a way, we already have that in other areas of American law; there’s no overarching theme to corporate regulation law, or tax law. Certain laws are created to prevent (or regulate) certain actions, and if you try to look at them as a coherent whole, they make no sense. (or appear abitrary) By “them”, I mean all tax laws, or all corporate regulation laws, etc.
I realize that the above justification might be used to justify the ridiculous, and dangerous, laws (if you can call them that) of the Bush administration. In fact, all the above justification can be used for is to argue that such non-principled laws might be allowed to exist. (Let’s leave the Constitution out of it for the purpose of this argument). It remains to be proven whether or not such irregular laws are wise… I think they’re extremely unwise. You’d have a hell of a time convincing me, or any other reasonable person, that the government wouldn’t eventually start to abuse such widespread powers.
In a sense. I’m fairly well informed on Reagen’s actions, the ideology and reasoning behind and actions, and so on. Therefore, the chance of me hearing new evidence or reasons that put the Gipper in a good light (in my mind) is almost nill. However, in ten years enough of my views might have changed where I start to think the Gipper was a pretty good guy. Such long term change is, of course, very possible in religion as well.
There is a difference between religion and political views, though. Political views can be separated and changed individually, while religious views generally have to be changed en masse. Tomorrow I might decide I’m in favor of the death penalty, a month from now I might decide that taxes should be lower, not higher, then in a year I might decide gun control is bad. Voila! A neophyte conservative is born! There’s no similar gradual change that can occur with religion, which generally makes them much less fluid. I’m not going to stop eating pork, then later start saying Muhammad was the prophet, then later declaring my devotion to Allah. Well… I might, but only if I was trying to be really insulting to Muslims.
That stuff aside, though, I still say that the European system (if I may call it that for shorthand) makes no sense… It’s pretty arbitrary.
I kind of agree with you. When I gave my arguments about how it made sense, I was making sense of it in my own mind, and Ander’s rejection of the “born gay” theory (or at least him saying it didn’t matter) means that the logical reasons I gave aren’t those that truly justify the system. And even with my semi-defense of putting religion on the “untouchable” list, I still think, from a logical viewpoint, it shouldn’t be there at all.
However, not all legal systems need to be strictly based on logic. (in my opinion) It should be an important component, but I believe that throwing in illogical elements if they help the law better cope with the reality of crimes is a good thing. In a way, we already have that in other areas of American law; there’s no overarching theme to corporate regulation law, or tax law. Certain laws are created to prevent (or regulate) certain actions, and if you try to look at them as a coherent whole, they make no sense. (or appear abitrary) By “them”, I mean all tax laws, or all corporate regulation laws, etc.
I realize that the above justification might be used to justify the ridiculous, and dangerous, laws (if you can call them that) of the Bush administration. Actually, the only thing the above justification can be used for is to argue that such irregular laws (as in "laws that don’t fit the general principle) might be allowed to exist. (Let’s leave the Constitution out of it for the purpose of this argument). It remains to be proven whether or not such irregular laws are wise. You can use “a good idea” in place of “wise” if that makes more sense to you.
edit- Reworded the final paragraph for clarity. All the same ideas are there, but they’re now somewhat comprehensible, instead of the rambling load of crap that I first posted.
I simply meant that my translation might not be accurate, as there are some not easily translated words in the law.
Well, again, I’m opposed to the law, but I don’t have a fundamental, principal problem with it.
The perception leading to the creation of such laws isn’t just that people are harmed by racist speech, it’s that they are harmed by hate crimes that can be fuelled and generated by racist speech.
Why are only the groups you mention covered by the law? I guess they are conditions that you shouldn’t have to be ashamed of, and that society’s not obligated to help you out of, like poverty, say. Why not Goths? The day people’s styles are targets for serious persecution I guess one might consider changing the law, but I don’t really see that happening. As Anaxagoras says (I think), there’s no principle for selecting what groups are protected aside from consideration of which ones historically have been seen to actually need protection.