Canadian Philosophy Professor Raises Tensions

[Cyclotron]

I can understand why you would think there would be an exception, after all, common sense says that if there is to be any exception, the holocaust would surely be it.

However, that starts begging the question of what constitutes exceptions and of course that'll spark cries of "me too" from all quarters and it'll all be very messy.

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't it a bit dangerous to start declaring "exceptions" to the right of free speech? Especially with the zealous defense of the cartoons coming from Europe, isn't it time to review those laws in this new light? After all to quote C0ckney some things are worth fighting for.

While I understand the logic of the slippery slope argument, it's not as if there aren't already exceptions to the principle of free speech. Some speech can be slander, and some can be considered immediately dangerous (to use the tired example of "fire" in a crowded building). The question is not "is the right to free speech absolute," because it clearly has never been. The question is what should be excepted for the safety and well-being of the public. We have decided that some speech, namely that which purposefully disgraces others and/or incites violence, is too dangerous to be free. Is it that great of a leap to say that some societies find Nazism just as dangerous, due to past events, and choose to ban it in the same way?

I've pulled out this quote before, but here it is again: I reject the slippery slope argument because all politics is a slippery slope. Whether free speech should be extended to Holocaust denial should be handled on a specific basis, not dismissed out of hand because it conflicts with a view of a complete and total right to free speech - which, as already noted, is fictitious.

Personally, I support America's stance, allowing these people to protest and deny as much as they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone. But if Europeans find Nazism so dangerous to their society today that it must be regulated against, is that really hypocrisy? It seems like an appropriate concern to me.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Isn't it a bit dangerous to start declaring "exceptions" to the right of free speech? Especially with the zealous defense of the cartoons coming from Europe, isn't it time to review those laws in this new light? After all to quote C0ckney some things are worth fighting for.

This is actually very relevant in the current French debate over the cartoons. Many offended Muslims consider it unfair that some speeches (regarding the holocaust) are legally banned, while speech that offends them isn't.

This might lead to an interesting debate with interesting results. Or not.

[Cyclotron]

I was under the impression that speech laws regarding the Holocaust existed to suppress any organized or legitimate neo/pro-Nazi movement from resurfacing, not to keep people from getting offended.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Personally, I support America's stance, allowing these people to protest and deny as much as they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone. But if Europeans find Nazism so dangerous to their society today that it must be regulated against, is that really hypocrisy?

Yes, it is. How is it anything but the height of hypocrisy to bleat about protecting freedom of expression by being pointlessly provocative while attempting to silence the expression of so-called dangerous political thought? The interests in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society should far outweigh any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes, it is. How is it anything but the height of hypocrisy to bleat about protecting freedom of expression by being pointlessly provocative while attempting to silence the expression of so-called dangerous political thought? The interests in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society should far outweigh any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.

A caricature of the Prophet is not dangerous, it is offensive, and that is where the difference lies. Denying the Holocaust is prohibited because past experience has shown that Nazism is a hateful ideology that has caused the deaths of millions. Offending Muslims - while it may not be good for the health of the cartoonist - is not dangerous to society, merely offensive. The mistake that the Muslims protesting make is the assumption that speech denying the Holocaust is banned because it offends Jews; clearly these governments have banned Nazism for the reason you mentioned - they believe it is a dangerous political thought.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Denying the Holocaust is prohibited because past experience has shown that Nazism is a hateful ideology that has caused the deaths of millions.

Why isn't communism banned if this truely is the criterion used?

they believe it is a dangerous political thought.

This says more about the strength (or sanity) of European political society than it does about the validity of the exception to free speech rights they have sought to create. Are we supposed to believe that a few malcontents espousing discredited ideaologies are somehow a threat to the peace and security of the countries that have such laws?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I was under the impression that speech laws regarding the Holocaust existed to suppress any organized or legitimate neo/pro-Nazi movement from resurfacing, not to keep people from getting offended.

/me sees Le Pen.

Well, that doesn't seem to be working

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why isn't communism banned if this truely is the criterion used?

I think you would find that most Europeans, indeed most people for that matter, consider Nazism to be far worse than Communism. It's not just about numbers; the systematic murder of an ethnic group, right in the middle of Europe, with Europeans of many nations complicit in the killing - this has a profound psychological effect that Communism somehow just doesn't engender. Why do you think there are so many Holocaust museums, and so few Gulag museums?

This says more about the strength (or sanity) of European political society than it does about the validity of the exception to free speech rights they have sought to create. Are we supposed to believe that a few malcontents espousing discredited ideaologies are somehow a threat to the peace and security of the countries that have such laws?

It is ultimately up to the society itself to determine what social movements are a radical threat to the values that the society holds most dear. It is their decision to make; you need not believe anything. That's why I mentioned its "unique relevance to Europe." While you and I can put the Holocaust away in a historical construction, many Europeans must face the reality that their own people in their own societies were complicit in the deed.

Regardless of what their specific reasons are, the point is that banning Holocaust denial and banning caricatures of Muhammed cannot be compared, because only one is done out of a sense that such speech endangers the society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

While you and I can put the Holocaust away in a historical construction, many Europeans must face the reality that their own people in their own societies were complicit in the deed.

So you'd think that the US passing a law saying no one can say anything expressing support for slavery would be ok because the US was complicit in the deed and it may 'endanger society' for someone to support that?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
* Imran Siddiqui sees Le Pen.

Well, that doesn't seem to be working

True, but not relevent.

EDIT: That is, the efficacy of a law does not change whether the law is just or moral or what have you.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you'd think that the US passing a law saying no one can say anything expressing support for slavery would be ok because the US was complicit in the deed and it may 'endanger society' for someone to support that?

No, because there is no serious possibility that slavery could ever again be instituted in this country. As you just pointed out with your example of Le Pen, the resurgence of neo-Nazism is a distinct possibility.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
True, but not relevent.

EDIT: That is, the efficacy of a law does not change whether the law is just or moral or what have you.

Why? If a law is totally useless at curtailing what it is meant to, why is it still moral to restrict rights to do something useless?

because there is no serious possibility that slavery could ever again be instituted in this country. As you just pointed out with your example of Le Pen, the resurgence of neo-Nazism is a distinct possibility.

So basically you are restricting free speech because you are scared what the people believe? That seems you have a problem with democracy as well. Why don't we ban that as well? I don't like the Communist Party, and they have a history of violence... I think I'll ban it in case people like the ideology.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why? If a law is totally useless at curtailing what it is meant to, why is it still moral to restrict rights to do something useless?

Useless != Apparently ineffective in one circumstance

So basically you are restricting free speech because you are scared what the people believe? That seems you have a problem with democracy as well. Why don't we ban that as well? I don't like the Communist Party, and they have a history of violence... I think I'll ban it in case people like the ideology.

You are using the slippery slope argument, which I reject as fallacious. I won't bite. The fact is that there are exceptions to free speech made even in the USA, so it must be conceded that some circumstances call for it to be curtailed. I personally don't agree, but the Europeans apparently think this is an important enough exception.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are using the slippery slope argument, which I reject as fallacious. I won't bite. The fact is that there are exceptions to free speech made even in the USA, so it must be conceded that some circumstances call for it to be curtailed. I personally don't agree, but the Europeans apparently think this is an important enough exception.

There are no exceptions based on viewpoint in US free speech jurisprudence.

What is the point of free speech if you ban a particular political point of view? Isn't free speech intended to protect unpopular viewpoints from the majority?

That's why the slippery slope is valid here. Because you are violating the central point of free speech.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There are no exceptions based on viewpoint in US free speech jurisprudence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but free speech is curtailed when the speech is immediately harmful (inciting a riot, shouting "fire"). Speech would also seem to be restricted by certain hate crimes legislation, which is widespread - here in Walla Walla, I am told there are two "forbidden symbols" that qualify as a hate crime by themselves, that is, the swastika and the burning cross. Clearly exceptions to free speech can be and have been made.

Additionally, I imagine jurisprudence in European states is different from ours. I won't take the viewpoint that our definitions are superior or inferior.

What is the point of free speech if you ban a particular political point of view? Isn't free speech intended to protect unpopular viewpoints from the majority?

The rationale behind banning Nazist espressions is that it is not just unpopular, but manifestly dangerous.

That's why the slippery slope is valid here. Because you are violating the central point of free speech.

Many European nations have laws against Nazism and Holocaust denial, and I don't see them having a crisis of ever more limited free speech. On the contrary, the current debacle is about Denmark having "too much" free speech, that is, the freedom to caricature Mohammed. 50 years or so of no evident "slipperyness" make your concerns apparently invalid.

Rights must be balanced in a mature society; we have chosen our right to speak freely over any rights we might have not to be offended, but only to a point (e.g. slander). People also have a right not to be brutalized, terrorized, and murdered - a right which, evidently, Europeans think would be jeapordized by a Nazi resurgence. They are simply balancing one against the other.