Canadian Philosophy Professor Raises Tensions

[Imran Siddiqui]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but free speech is curtailed when the speech is immediately harmful (inciting a riot, shouting "fire").

That isn't a viewpoint restriction.

Speech would also seem to be restricted by certain hate crimes legislation, which is widespread

Like I said, not in US free speech jurisprudence.

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

Our free speech jurisprudence sure is. We actually realize that censoring speech of minority or hated political parties is exactly why the case was made for free speech, since democracy was a belief of the minority, or those not in power.

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

Which I'd call bull**** on. Bush can say that expressions of support for Al Queda are 'manifestly dangerous' but that doesn't make it so (even if a majority of Americans may agree).

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.

The precedent is set. What do you think will happen when more Muslims move into a state like France or Germany, which have strong restrictions of speech, and have political power? What do you think will happen with speech that is offensive to Muslims?

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.

Or for the parties in power to consolidate their own political power?

Furthermore, Austria had a far right party in power (Haider's party) and I don't recall any brutalization, terrorism, or murders, even though the European PR machine was in full force.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like I said, not in US free speech jurisprudence.

Then you are just referring to Supreme Court decisions?

Our free speech jurisprudence sure is. We actually realize that censoring speech of minority or hated political parties is exactly why the case was made for free speech, since democracy was a belief of the minority, or those not in power.

Like I said, I won't take the viewpoint either way.

Which I'd call bull**** on. Bush can say that expressions of support for Al Queda are 'manifestly dangerous' but that doesn't make it so (even if a majority of Americans may agree).

I would be inclined to agree, but then again I'm not European and I haven't lived under Nazi occupation, nor do I know anyone who has. Only they can judge what is good for them, and if they think neo-Nazism imperils their society then that's their decision.

The precedent is set. What do you think will happen when more Muslims move into a state like France or Germany, which have strong restrictions of speech, and have political power? What do you think will happen with speech that is offensive to Muslims?

It's my turn to call bull****. If Muslims with political power in those countries wanted to make depicting the Prophet illegal, they would do it, precedent be damned.

Or for the parties in power to consolidate their own political power?

Furthermore, Austria had a far right party in power (Haider's party) and I don't recall any brutalization, terrorism, or murders, even though the European PR machine was in full force.

far right != Nazi

Furthermore, do you seriously think that the banning of neo-Nazi groups helps existing parties to consolidate political power? It's not as if the neo-Nazi groups are really that plentiful.