Hypothetical questions about free speech

[RGBVideo]

Let's presume that the people have organised a silent demonstration in remembrance of a tragic historical event in which over a thousand people were murdered, displaying their mourning for the people who died. The demonstrators-to-be or the organisers of the event have not done any acts of provocation during the planning stage of the demonstration. The demonstration is to be a silent march. The demonstrators are not to brake any laws or city ordnances, respectfully or disrespectfully.

Suppose a local person of authority bans (that is, declares as illegal, explicitly prohibits) the demonstration two days before it happens, citing concerns about public safety and declaring that neither he or the law enforcement can do anything to defend the demonstrators from public violence if the demonstrators choose to violate his ban.

In this hypothetical, I wish to know your opinions on the following questions: (a) Is the ban acceptable under normal circumstances? Or are there any temporary emergecy situations you would find the ban acceptable?; (b) What can be said about the level of free speech in the area in which the demonstration is to be held? Is the state of free speech sound? Is it comparable to international standards?; (c) Under normal circumstances and the "default" state of the country (no state of emergency, average level of violence), would you find this ban an act of tolerance?

[Dracon II]

Sounds like more than just a hypothetical, VJ.

I would have to say that the conditions under which prior restraint can be applied should be quite limited... and that, in making a decision based on the (limited) information you have provided, I would not apply prior restraint in this situation.

[Pekka]

I know the situation VJ is referring to. Like so many things in Europe, it was a complete joke.

[Nikolai]

Yeah, silly fear of hurting our immigrants' feelings are really rampant these days.

[RGBVideo]

Thanks for ruining the point of the thread, guys. Now that people know it's about self-censorship in Europe in favour of radical and openly aggressive fundy demands, everyone can decide whether they're "pro-immigrant" or "anti-immigrant" and get stuck in their bull**** prejudice about who's guilty and who's the victim. Absolutely nobody will bother thinking about the case on it's own basis, because the facts are getting too surreal to comprehend unless you'll get them beaten to your face on a daily basis.

My point is, Nikolai, that this isn't merely a "silly" or an irrelevant thing. If one can not arrange or take part in a silent, non-violent demonstration for something as universally good as condolences for people killed in a terrorist attack, free speech is dead. Or rather, it's on the same level as it was in Soviet Union, when government told you what you can demonstrate for. Everyone was free to protest against evil capitalist tyrants who were supposedly behind food shortages in 1980s in Moscow. In Bruxelles, everyone is free to arrange demonstrations against "provocators" who are behind the racism which is forcing muslim fundies to blow up and murder people, it's just that remembrance marches to 9/11 are not allowed.

It was close that I didn't even notice this news piece, I was bored and browsing some news articles pasted on an IRC-channel. Guys, this is it. It's forbidden to demonstrate wrong kind of opinions in public. Don't you understand what kind of a predecent this is? It's not like there's martial law and curfew in Bruxelles because of an emergency situation, so what is even the theoretical justification for banning a demonstration for wrong kind of thoughts? Totalitarianism in EU's capital and the mayor acts like it's "business as usual" -- Why the **** am I not seeing this on CNN's front page?

[Pekka]

I think you're off base here. It's not what they were demonstrating for, it was who they were. So while certain issues are too taboo in Europe, there's also groups of people who can't take a stand because it automatically makes it controversial in the eyes of the most offended.

So to me it's like a dual-headed monster, not just one-headed. It's not just the issue, it's the people who raise the issue that indirectly implies to a controversial issue. So in a way it's a lot worse.

But I can't remember a time in Europe when this was otherwise. But then again I'm young. It'll get worse though. We've always been hypocrites, just check out the situation after the Danish cartoons. Lots of demonstrations IN Europe, and some of them voices were quite... racist and radical. As in kill all infidels, it was full of hatred and arousing people to violence and murder of racist nature.

But it was kosher. Because some people were offended, so we must understand. Right?

It's not the fault of the fundies. It's the fault of the people who keep pushing this tolerance issue upside down. It doesn't bother me that fundies get to say what they want. By all means. But so should others.

[LordShiva]

To what issue are you guys referring?

[Meticulous Man]

Let's presume that the people have organised a silent demonstration in remembrance of a tragic historical event in which over a thousand people were murdered, displaying their mourning for the people who died.

Nevertheless, I'd be interested in hearing whether people from less peripheral countries than Finland perceive "islamization" of Europe as an actual problem. There are so few immigrants in here compared to places like Denmark and the Netherlands that you can't really draw conclusions about this subject based on what's going on in here.

Thus far, the trend of Islamophobia seems to me to mostly be a repetition of 20th century anti-semitism:

-Fear of an enemy corrupting our society from within with their morally reprehensible ways
-Anger directed also at white "traitors" ("socialists" etc)
-Propaganda consists mostly of isolated incidents reported in the media

etc...

[Pekka]

Aivo, so the group are some kind of sub-humans and not people?

9/11 wasn't tragic?

I thought this was about free speech, not about islamization of Europe. The group of people you consider racists, anti-semites and whatever don't have the same rights as the rest of the people and if so, why?

VJ was making a point of right and wrong opinions. Somehow you seem to be proving the point of it.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Pekka
It's not the fault of the fundies. It's the fault of the people who keep pushing this tolerance issue upside down.

Yes, this is the problem. We both know this.

So to me it's like a dual-headed monster, not just one-headed. It's not just the issue, it's the people who raise the issue that indirectly implies to a controversial issue. So in a way it's a lot worse.

People who raise the issue are people who are blocking the demonstration. Right to assembly is a pretty fundamental right. Banning a demonstration which

If you're trying to hint to me that the people who were forming the demonstration are "fascists" or "racists" or "islamophobic", or whatever the meaningless codeword for justifying totalitarian control methods is at the moment, I have no idea who they were. I have not seen pictures of them, just like I never saw any pictures of people ending up in gulags in USSR. The state media of course told every foreigner that they were "fascists" or "trotskyists" or "imperialist capitalist pigdogs". The point is that it does not matter. Banning peaceful demonstration in which people are only mourning for 9/11 for supposed ideologies of the demonstrators is bull****. It's an ad hoc justification for totalitarianism, and only the sort of non-thinking tools who were the first to march in leather boots and give Hitler salutes in the 30s fall for it.

Look, I only have samizdat sources and the original press release proclaiming the silent march to be illegal. Nobody who doesn't live in Europe has not even heard of this. Does anyone here have any official news sources?

[Meticulous Man]

Pekka:

9/11 wasn't tragic?

I thought this was about free speech, not about islamization of Europe. The group of people you consider racists, anti-semites and whatever don't have the same rights as the rest of the people and if so, why?

This was really about a fringe group trying to use 9/11 for political gain. As the mayor's decision to prohibit the demonstration (which, of course, in actuality was a demonstration against a religious community) was sanctioned by the laws of Belgium, a yet pure and democratic country only under the threat of being corrupted by the Islamic evil, I don't have a problem with it...

[Pekka]

Yes, it was an attempt to hijack the event and gain from it. So what? Doesn't change the fact that it was a BS call to prohibit it. Sure, Belgium can have all the laws they want and ban all the events they seem fit, however, it still doesn't make them less hypocrites.

Whether Islamization is happening or not is not something I'm particularly interested in, but if we should be able to talk about it is something I am interested in.

And it's the Danish cartoons all over again. People are afraid, that's the bottom line. It's got very little to do with tolerance, it's got very little to do with anything else except some people being afraid that some people get mad and offended. This should never be the measure of how acceptable something is.

[Meticulous Man]

VJ:

If you're trying to hint to me that the people who were forming the demonstration are "fascists" or "racists" or "islamophobic", or whatever the meaningless codeword for justifying totalitarian control methods is at the moment, I have no idea who they were. I have not seen pictures of them, just like I never saw any pictures of people ending up in gulags in USSR. The state media of course told every foreigner that they were "fascists" or "trotskyists" or "imperialist capitalist pigdogs". The point is that it does not matter. Banning peaceful demonstration in which people are only mourning for 9/11 for supposed ideologies of the demonstrators is bull****. It's an ad hoc justification for totalitarianism, and only the sort of non-thinking tools who were the first to march in leather boots and give Hitler salutes in the 30s fall for it.

Sure, years after 9/11, a political group called "Stop the Islamization of Europe" from another continent thousands of miles away from where 9/11 happened just suddenly got all watery-eyed about the tragic event and decided to organize a demonstration in remembrance of it.

[Pekka]

Aivo, that's hardly the point now is it? That's not a very solid argument to ban the speech of group because you don't like them or because they might have some other agenda.

Exactly why shouldn't they be allowed to hold the silent demonstration? Give me a reason why they shouldn't have the opportunity while others would? If these peopel aren't allowed to hold silent demo, then you have to make a list of people who have less rights than others.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by VJ
Right to assembly is a pretty fundamental right.

I would think that this case would show you that isn't the case in Europe.