Back To Law; But, Not Totally
You’re a @%^&* $^* $! ) %$^#@. The number of symbols are right to spell “you are a stupid son of a bitch. Probably not hate speech. Were I to change it to “you are a blank blank (fill in an adjective that is not proper in polite speech and an noun that describes an ethnic group)” and I might be guilty of violating hate speech laws in a number of countries.
Here’s an article in today’s NYTimes.com, Do read it. It discusses an article published in Canada that may violate a hate speech law and draws distinctions between United States First Amendment law and that found in Canada and other countries where, in my view, speech (free speech) and expression (free expression), are fettered.
I’ll avoid law by starting with the cliché “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Of course words can hurt me, hurt my feelings and thereby my well being. But, should the fact that my feelings are hurt be a crime? I don’t think so, except when that hurt coincides with the risk of physical danger to me and/or others.
I’m a free speech and expression purist. Say what you will and I’ll respond if I’m so inclined – the model of the blog world. Burn a flag and I’ll feel sorry for you, unless you say something that moves me to agree with your expression.
Absolutism in speech and expression are fundamental rights (damn, I veered into law), necessary for us to talk about what divides us. This is not to say that I subscribe to hateful talk and conduct; but, it must be allowed.
To end, here’s a link to a post from Mike, a great writer and someone I often times don’t agree with. His solution to hate speech was perfect.
8 comments:
Love this quote from the NYT story: “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts. They’re about feelings.”
It's like trying to outlaw idiots. It'll just never happen.
Very interesting article as well as the post you referred people to in this piece, Dave.
I had no idea that my interpretation (or perhaps I should say "our" interpretation of free speech here is so different than that of so many other countries.
If you can't say -without being outright slanderous or libelous -what you think of various situations, the government, society at large, etc., how does change ever come about then when it is actually needed? Someone has to be the one who says things that may be unpleasant yet need said. Think back to Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry -so many others -had they been stifled by not being able to speak their piece (albeit this was before the First Amendment came about too, I realize that) would we, as a country, exist as we do today? Sometimes, while words written may be painful to some segments to read, to process, they also may be necessary. Could anyone in Nazi Germany criticize any of Hitler's actions and live to tell about it? Perhaps if speech then were handled like it is here there may have been an awakening back then of the wrong taking place there. Just my thoughts -my extremely humble opinion about a right I consider to be very valuable.
be careful tonight....be very careful!
Too late dilf, I just bailed out of the Fulton County jail. We were attacked by a bunch of Southern Baptists downtown when Hedy muttered something about Cuddly Wuddly Jesus. Those people are animals. Hedy held her own. I raising money for her bail as I type.
I get it Dave, I really do that shackling free speech for any reason is a slippery slope. All must be allowed because that is why speech has been freed and yet, as much as the fairness of my intellect recognizes that to be true and right, I find myself echoing in my heart of hearts what Mr. Waldron said:
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
But then, I find myself swinging towards the truth of this statement also in the article:
“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Justice Holmes wrote.
Which is so true also but so many truths that win out in the market nowadays are so twisted that I worry at the capacity of the many to forge such wrong truths in today's world. Shouldn't there be some way to rein this in?
I know you will disagree with me. I disagree with me too. I also agree with me and there is the crux of this whole dilemma of the right to free speech or not. There is no in between. Black and white is the way to take it and I'm so inclined to say that this world is a get murkier by the day kind of gray that maybe, just maybe, two sides of the coin are not enough to handle the complexity of our current issues.
I'm probably not making any sense. I'll leave it at that.
Good post. Thought provoking. You've put me in a mental muddle. Not a bad thing state to be in today.
The ying and the yang again. Free speech is important to Americans. To Canadians as well. But much more so to Americans. I grew up in a very communist Romania, (until I was 15 and moved to Canada) where not only did they not have free speech, but people often dissappeared during the night if they uttered an unkind word about the party. (by that I mean the Communist party)
I remember moving to Canada and being in awe about the self expression rights that we have here. It was great to see so much freedom, and so many people enjoying it.
After 19 years of living here I've seen the ugly side of that too. I don't remember how many times I've read articles where freedom of speech (filled with hatred and conviction) has lead to some young kid taking their own life, or has started some sort of fight that escalates until fatal.
It seems the problem with freedom of speech, - i feel like this about your gun laws too - that the individual responsible for his own action has become a poor judge of when to stop. So it escalates until someone gets hurt.
I've lived with rigidity and in a very 'boxed in' society for 15 years, then in a very liberal one for 19 other.
I prefer the latter.
But I think the ideal world is somewhere between the two of them.
Hey I remember this article and the chaos around it (I just clicked on the link to read it)
I should've read it first I guess, then I could've told you that already and not take up a second comment :-)
I agree... Mike's solution was perfect.
Post a Comment