Freedom of speech versus right to human dignity

Thirdfox

A video I watched on youtube today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Bf-lM9Oe4

In this, a Chinese girl from Liaoning basically has a 4 minute rant in a webcafe insulting the victims and survivors of the Sichuan earthquake (for example saying things like "old granny survives after 100 hours? you should have died long ago - what are you trying to do, pretend to be a mummy?" or "why are you calling for aid? you have plenty of grass, go eat that") I don't have the time or inclination to translate all she said (a lot of it worse than this).

But I have read that she has been arrested (perhaps for her own safety). Personally while I believe that someone like this is utterly reprehensible she should be allowed to voice her opinions (just like someone advocating paedophilia - if they want to do it they should be allowed to do so - we should use good speech to drive out the bad). Free market of ideas means protecting the speech we hate as well as the speech we love...

So what are people's opinions of laws preventing some forms of speech in order to protect human dignity e.g. Germany's laws on holocaust denial or pro-nazi slogans. While it is certainly an insult to the millions of Jewish victims should people be allowed to contest what has happened? Should people be jailed for saying otherwise? Should speech be limited in any way or do you advocate unfettered speech (which I think is a terrible idea - even we don't have fully "free" speech, incitement to hatred and defamation laws etc.)

But where to draw the line? Currently in Ireland saying:

"Kill all black/gay/disabled people" = not okay

"Minister X uses prostitutes and looks at child porn" = not okay (if not true)

"The holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the US government" = okay (though not in Germany/Austria)

"I wish more Chinese people died in the earthquake" = okay

"We should legalise paedophilia" = okay (advocating paedophilia itself may not be though as it may constitute an incitement to commit a crime)

So have we got the balance right?

seamus

I'm of the opinion that people should be able to say whatever they want in public, but face the consequences for doing so - even if that's arrest, jail, etc.

That is, I would never support gagging of people or publications, but I'm all for hauling them over hot coals when their words break the law.

I view it much in the same way as speeding - we need to have limits and they need to be enforced, but I would never support an initiative that *forced* people to stick to the limits (e.g. by limiters in vehicles).

I would say that we're relatively close to getting the balance right here in Ireland. Our defamation laws are perhaps a tiny bit too stringent and aren't flexible enough on "fair comment". I think we have the principles pretty good, but our implementation sucks - the liability issue (i.e. who's at fault) is ridiculously grey.

haz

Thirdfox wrote: »

a Chinese girl from Liaoning basically has a 4 minute rant in a webcafe insulting the victims and survivors of the Sichuan earthquake

Here you could do just that on Liveline, and get away with really gross-out rants on Newstalk or Cork's 96FM. The station might get a slap on the wrist if it breached broadcasting guidelines, or defamed an identifiable person (like Monica Leech), or an organisation under proposed legislation. You wouldn't necessarily get away with discrimination under "the 9 grounds" or incitement to a crime, although people do rant about travellers and say lynching is too good for paedophiles without any consequence. Mostly hateful speech is socially moderated and there are some huge elephants in the room - being called "Nigerian" all day tends to annoy black Americans, for instance.

Thirdfox

I'm more interested in what people personally feel about the idea of freedom of expression - like Seamus has said above, he feels you should be allowed to say it but some things if said will be punished.

If someone was marching down O'Connell street trying to get people to sign a petition saying we should legalise paedophilia I suspect s/he would probably be lynched...s/he probably could get police protection though I'd suspect.

And yes I definitely see the distinction that exists between social and legal moderation - should we try to reconcile the two or is that not something that should/could happen?

drunkmonkey

I don't agree with any law that any way effects a persons right to say what they want, when they want.

I also firmly believe everyone has the right to challenge what they say....but not the courts...

incitement to hatred for example......"let's go bomb iraq anyone coming to help?" is perfectly fine for a government to say"...... shud the president be locked up for preaching hatred before anyone gets hurt? If you and i said the same about a donout shop in new york we'd be locked up for life.....

what do you think, why are the people who make the laws exempt if were not, is that a fair society?