The West- Free Speech Hypocrites

Einhard

William Saletan has an excellent article in Slate on the West's approach to the issue of freedom of expression, and how it's based on double standards and hypocrisy. Since the release of the now infamous anti-Islam film, and the violent reaction to it by some Muslims in some countries, there have been calls by Muslim nations for Western governments to clamp down on such expressions. The response in the West has been to stoutly defend such freedoms, and to urge respect for them on Muslim nations. We stand by freedom of expression, even when it offends, and such is the mark of a mature, tolerant society. Which we hope those Muslim societies will become...

Such has been the gist in many parts anyway, and of course there have been much stronger reactions amongst individuals. It's all well and good, and would be something to welcome, were it not based on a pack of lies. As President Ahmedinejad of Iran pointed out that European nations have no issue with imprisoning those who do not hold orthodox views on the Holocaust, while a myriad of laws across the continent prevent fortright opinions being expressed on everything from gays to 9/11. As Saletan points out

Germany punishes anyone found guilty of “insulting” or “defaming segments of
the population.” The Netherlands bans anything that “verbally or in writing or
image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their
religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical,
psychological or mental handicap.” It’s illegal to “insult” such a group in
France, to “defame” them in Portugal, to “degrade” them in Denmark, or to
“expresses contempt” for them in Sweden.

And yet, when Muslims call for such clampdowns to be applied to attacks on their religion, they're treated as if they just dragged crap across the carpet of the civilised world. They don't understand the nature of free speech. They don't get. When, it seems, we're the ones who don't get it. They might be wrong about calling for restrictions, but at least they're not hypocrites. Saletan points out the case of Denis Leroy who drew an imflamatory cartoon in seeming support of the motivations at least of those behind 9/11. He was duly prosecuted, and appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, citing his right to freedom of expression in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court heard his case, yet decreed his rights had not been violated, and observed that the

drawing’s publication had provoked a certain public reaction, capable of
stirring up violence and of having a demonstrable impact on public order in the
Basque Country.

Which is basically what uslim nations are saying about the recent film...

So...are we hypocrites when it comes to freedom of expression? Are Muslims correct to regard our belief in such freedoms with contempt? I think the answer to both is a resounding yes. I'm all for freedom of expression...I just wish it were applied equally across the board.

Article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/09/free_speech_vs_hate_speech_why_is_it_legal_to_insult_muslims_but_not_jews_.html

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Oh for god's sake pull the other one...Islamic leaders have just demanded a GLOBAL BAN ON BLASPHAMEY AND ANTI-ISMALM SPEECH..

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=534365&version=1&template_id=41&parent_id=23

'Prominent cleric Mufti Muneebur Rehman called for punishing Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian behind the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims.


“Our demand is that an international law must be passed to prevent the menace of blasphemy,” Rehman said, as the audience shouted anti-US slogans. '


Yeah right....

They want to legally repress every human being on this planet......


I can insult Sweden tomorrow and make a film about it..they will protest but no death threats and they will verbally express themselves

With Islam..some will burn flags and express themselves..fair enough thats free speech....threatening to kill people or trying to get people killed is not...thats incitemnt to commit violence


They are calling for a GLOBAL BAN.....who do these Islamic leaders think they are?

No we are not hypocrytes....insult Jesus and Irish people to your hearts content.

Whover called for this globalban obviously does not understand the nature of free speech and to be honest the west has to take a stand for free speech on this.

Einhard

Ummm, well done for missing the entire point of my post. It's not about Islam. It's about freedom of expression, and the hypocritical restrictions on it in many European countries. If you don't want to comment on it, fair enough, but I'd prefer then if you just didn't bother comment at all rather than drag it off topic.

The Bishop!

Good article. Yes, i agree wholeheartedly that there is hypocricy and double standards evident.

Unfortunately, merely pointing this out and comparing and contrasting it to stricter laws for other ethnic groups can lead to you being labelled as bigoted or racist, such is the contrived sensitivity in certain circles.

Freedom of speech is important, but it can be misused and subverted for political gain. The libertarian position is obviously unworkable in my opinion; it simply has to be tempered with measures to stop incitement to hatred. It cannot feasably exist in it's purest form in modern society.
The laws in place for protecting hate speech against other minorities should be extended to include all races and creeds equitably.

The violence arising from this is abhorrent and inexcusable, but it's important to bear in mind that there are extremists on both sides.
Anti-Islam bigotry is on the rise in the U.S. as is violence against muslims. This is imo partly due to a very well-funded Islamophobia industry that thrives there at the moment and is given massive media exposure. It's definitely one standard for muslims (hatred and distrust is tolerated) and another for other groups.

Memnoch

It's true, sad and funny.

You'll get a certain crowd of people yelling 'politically correct pinkos,' every time you upbraid them by challenging their bigotry or religious intolerance. Yet these same people will make the most noise and expect PC protection and sensitivity towards their own beliefs (usually Christianity).

The problem with people like these is that they don't really understand what Freedom of speech is and more pertinently, that it is political correctness that stops people from calling them out on their obvious though thinly veiled racism.

philologos

Memnoch wrote: »

It's true, sad and funny.

You'll get a certain crowd of people yelling 'politically correct pinkos,' every time you upbraid them by challenging their bigotry or religious intolerance. Yet these same people will make the most noise and expect PC protection and sensitivity towards their own beliefs (usually Christianity).

The problem with people like these is that they don't really understand what Freedom of speech is and more pertinently, that it is political correctness that stops people from calling them out on their obvious though thinly veiled racism.

How specifically does Christianity fall into the 'bigoted' category or even the screaming for protection category?

As far as I can tell Christians have time and time again tolerated ridicule of Jesus Christ and the Gospel in public and in the media.

If I'm discussing my beliefs with others I do have criteria for discussing them. Namely when people become outright obnoxious or rude I stop. It takes quite a while to reach that limit. I have continued to discuss with people even when they've cursed about Jesus or God so I could better understand and explain the Gospel to them but I do have my limits.

Ireland doesn't have free speech.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Einhard wrote: »

Ummm, well done for missing the entire point of my post. It's not about Islam. It's about freedom of expression, and the hypocritical restrictions on it in many European countries. If you don't want to comment on it, fair enough, but I'd prefer then if you just didn't bother comment at all rather than drag it off topic.

It was RIGHT on topic, you accuse the west of not respecting freedom of speech. How?
In America you can be a member of the KKK you can claim god hates Americans and that's your right.

It is in their constitution.

What you will find is their private media does censor things but that is not the state.

Countries like Iran i would suggest don't have this right.

Europe has more freedom of expression that a country like Iran but then less than America.

Each country has it's own standards of frdom within reason i accept that

So...are we hypocrites when it comes to freedom of expression? Are Muslims correct to regard our belief in such freedoms with contempt? I think the answer to both is a resounding yes. I'm all for freedom of expression...I just wish it were applied equally across the board.

NO and NO

I believe that the west sometimes fails to live up to it's best intentions.

The only reason Leroy was proscuted( and in my opinion scandalously so ) was to calm the unjustified and violent anger of SOME muslims the authoritis wer afraid tat they could not contain it.

And this is YOUTUBE not a newspaper you can't police it. And Europe is not America it is like saying the brand of Islam in turkey is the same as the brand of Islam in Algeria. How could you ban something Global?
This is not about holding on country to it's own standards..it is about aplying one traditions beliefs bout blasphemy right accross the globe.


'The West' is not consistant bcause the 'West' is actually many different countries. America does not impinnge on fredom of speech in the same way Europe does.

And i would say this film does not apply to the laws you mention as it is art it is not rhetoric. It was trashy but there you go.

You are asking every country to be held to a law in Sweden or Norway as if the west is one entity.

To be honest the Leaders asking for th ban ar their own worst nmies...the reaction was what made it spread like wildfire they helped the film much more than they hindered it.

The doubl edged sword is you can't ban burning of flags by Muslims or cheering Death to America. Moderat Muslims and th west may not like it but that is their right to freedom of expression.

What if we called for a global ban on anyone speaking ill of homosexuality accross the muslim world?

And you can express hatred for gay people in the us just listen to christian radio.:(

The narrative is the way it is bcause lts face it relations between the west and Islam are at an all time low....and both are antagonistic towards the other they are both so angry they don't care to try to appease the other anymore.



I don't think you can stop freedom of speech that's the truth it has it's own life.

So no i disagr with the OP entirely.

Manach

Under the article 10 of the ECHR for freedom of expression, the right to hold and discuss opinions without State interference is very broad. The ECHR court has upheld this in number cases for many messages and media, including films, books, etc. - ie "[ideas] which offend, shock or distrub the State" - as per the ECHR case of Handyside.

Given the extremists of the left in the West (using extremist is a lose manner which basically means anyone who does not agree with a certain world-view - ie the how the left uses it) have created a culture of PC deference which seek to formally penalise those not in-line with the secular world view. From work penalties to those who speak out about gay "marriage" on social media to the wearing of Christian symbols at work, this is an aggressive attempt to stifle any other voices in the public square beyond their own.

M three

America has sweet FA to do with free speech, they're the greatest bunch of hypocrites ever. Obamas speech this week tobthe un was a pack of lies, but when it came to the iranian speech, the us ambassador to the un didnt even show up.

The anti muslim cartoons are being deliberately released to fire up tensions in muslim countries. Its being happening imtermittently in recent years.

Makes you wonder whos really behind them

golden lane

the world is made up of different countries.........that is a fact.....

what they individually class as free speech.....is up to them......individually....

Royal Legend

The bigitory is on both sides, I agree that the OP has some good points, but each side picks out extremes of behaviour to prove their argument. PC is used as an excuse in the Western World to gag people and to put people down. According to the western press, Muslims hate the west and go against everything we value, I am sure that the opposite is portrayed in the East, the problem is that the extremes of these views propogate and magnify these views, hence the continuing alienation.
As a recent poster pointed out as an example, the Muslims are portrayed as anti gay, yet the powerful religious right in America also hold the same view. Polar opposites I think not.

wes

I remember watching Sky News for a bit, with people banging on about how people need to accept free speech etc, and along the bottom, this guy was found guilty of insulting British soldiers:

Azhar Ahmed Found Guilty For 'Unacceptable' Facebook Jibes At Dead British Soldiers

What the guy said was nasty, but surely he shouldn't be in court over it. Surely British soldiers have no right to not be offended, even if what is being said is especially nasty. I heard of no one defending free speech for this guy either.

I have to say I had a good laugh. While the people who were rioting were idiots, and it was of course unacceptable. It doesn't really change the fact that a lot European countries do not believe in free speech, so lecturing on it just rings hollow. Yes, people should be able to insult Islam, but then you should be able insult British soldiers and everyone else. Either you give everyone the same protection from insult, or you don't give it to anyone. The present system is clearly hypocritical.

Eggy Baby!

Freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech unless you are allowed to say everything. Freedom isn't "you can do this, this, this and this, but not this." Hence why western societies are not "free" in the pedantic sense of the word.

So when people say that we are "free" they should mean that we are freer than most.

As for that dead soldiers vibe in the UK, and the response to that; I say, why can't he insult dead soldiers? If he insulted me or one of my friends, or someone he knew, he wouldn't get prosecuted for it. So why soldiers?

Do the people who made jokes about Michael Jackson's death (there were a lot, even on Facebook) also have to go to the slammer/ get fined?

Brown Bomber

I started a thread on this very topic with examples yesterday in the atheist forum. They got all hyper-sensitive there but some here might find the examples interesting.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81005652&postcount=1

decimatio

philologos wrote: »

If I'm discussing my beliefs with others I do have criteria for discussing them. Namely when people become outright obnoxious or rude I stop. It takes quite a while to reach that limit. I have continued to discuss with people even when they've cursed about Jesus or God so I could better understand and explain the Gospel to them but I do have my limits.

So all I have to do to make mormon or evangelist missionaries go away is to be rude? Fantastic!

Einhard

To be honest, I think Christians are more sinned against that sinners in this instance. At least in Europe. Prosecutions are relatively common against Christians when they enthusiastically promote their beliefs, especially regarding homosexuality, yet it's aparently a free-for-all when it comes to offending or disparaging Christians. I think the latter should be the case, but for all religions and creeds and ethnicities. I believe that freedom of expression should be universal and all encompassing, except when it is clearly beng used to incite violence against a particular group.

Laminations

Einhard, although we may have libel laws and slander laws and punish or imprison people for denying the Holocaust or spreading hate, these are only in cases where the comments are indefensible or untrue and against real individuals or groups. While religious expression is protected, religions are not a person or group, they are a set of ideas, beliefs. Religions are not based on, nor do they care about, burdens of proof. They are neither falsifiable or denfensible. Nor are they based on accurate or recent documented events like the Holocaust.

So if I was to call you a paedophile we could both go to court to present our positions with evidence and the court would decide the truth, if my comments were slanderous or if they were justified. No such determination can be made about a god or a long dead prophet from the 6 century. No court will or should adjudicate on my claims that your god or anyone else is a big spaghetti monster in the sky.

The non-evidenciary nature of religion means it doesn't receive protection under libel laws. To liken criticisms, parodies or simple insults against a (makey uppy) religion to comments from holocaust deniers is treading on dangerous ground.

Einhard

Laminations wrote: »

Einhard, although we may have libel laws and slander laws and punish or imprison people for denying the Holocaust or spreading hate, these are only in cases where the comments are indefensible or untrue and against real individuals or groups.

Who decides whether the comments are indefensible or not?

While religious expression is protected, religions are not a person or group,
they are a set of ideas, beliefs. Religions are not based on, nor do they care
about, burdens of proof. They are neither falsifiable or denfensible. Nor are
they based on accurate or recent documented events like the Holocaust.

I know where you're coming from here, but no single event in history has ever been the subject of unanimous assent as to its nature. Yet we pick out one event, and state that there is an orthodoxy to it and those who dare to stray from that orthodoxy will be deprived of their liberty. That's incredibly illiberal to me.

I mean, if we were to be consistent, we would also outlaw denial of global warming.

So if I was to call you a paedophile we could both go to court to present our
positions with evidence and the court would decide the truth, if my comments
were slanderous or if they were justified. No such determination can be made
about a god or a long dead prophet from the 6 century. No court will or should
adjudicate on my claims that your god or anyone else is a big spaghetti monster
in the sky.

I'm not just discussing religions though. As wes points out, a Muslim was prosecuted recently in the UK for offending British soliders. There was a serious investigation into a tweet by a young man to a British Olympian which was deemed as offensive. I've referenced the case of Denis Leroy already, and here are many other such instances. The magazine Charlie Hedbo which rightly defended its decision to publish the Mohammad cartoons, sacked a contributor a few years ago because of allegedly anti-semitic comments in an article (they were nothing of the sort). In America, the right of groups to publish anti-Islam posters was uphold, but those which spoke out against Israel were ordered to be taken down. In much of Europe, as Saletan pointed out, there are laws against insulting or offending whole segments of the population. And yet apparently, it's ok to insult or offend Muslims, but not gays or Jews? I mean, the hypocrisy there is pretty self-evident.

These are all illustrative of double standards when it comes to freedom of expresion in the West.

The non-evidenciary nature of religion means it doesn't receive protection under libel laws. To liken criticisms, parodies or simple insults against a (makey uppy) religion to comments from holocaust deniers is treading on dangerous ground.

I just want to point out, before anyone gets the wrong ideas, that I'm not denying the Holocaust or minimising it, nor do I believe that we should all go around insulting particular groups, but rather that our standards should be universal in character and universally applied, and that's simply not the case.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Einhard wrote: »

Who decides whether the comments are indefensible or not?



I know where you're coming from here, but no single event in history has ever been the subject of unanimous assent as to its nature. Yet we pick out one event, and state that there is an orthodoxy to it and those who dare to stray from that orthodoxy will be deprived of their liberty. That's incredibly illiberal to me.

I mean, if we were to be consistent, we would also outlaw denial of global warming.



I'm not just discussing religions though. As wes points out, a Muslim was prosecuted recently in the UK for offending British soliders. There was a serious investigation into a tweet by a young man to a British Olympian which was deemed as offensive. I've referenced the case of Denis Leroy already, and here are many other such instances. The magazine Charlie Hedbo which rightly defended its decision to publish the Mohammad cartoons, sacked a contributor a few years ago because of allegedly anti-semitic comments in an article (they were nothing of the sort). In America, the right of groups to publish anti-Islam posters was uphold, but those which spoke out against Israel were ordered to be taken down. In much of Europe, as Saletan pointed out, there are laws against insulting or offending whole segments of the population. And yet apparently, it's ok to insult or offend Muslims, but not gays or Jews? I mean, the hypocrisy there is pretty self-evident.

These are all illustrative of double standards when it comes to freedom of expresion in the West.

The non-evidenciary nature of religion means it doesn't receive protection under libel laws. To liken criticisms, parodies or simple insults against a (makey uppy) religion to comments from holocaust deniers is treading on dangerous ground.

I just want to point out, before anyone gets the wrong ideas, that I'm not denying the Holocaust or minimising it, nor do I believe that we should all go around insulting particular groups, but rather that our standards should be universal in character and universally applied, and that's simply not the case.

In a democracy the electorate or legislative branch decide. Thy may decide sometimes to put the rights of a minority group first or the whole electorate first or sometimes an individual first. The tenets of the secular law of the land decide and it is therefore applied equally by law and in courts. In this cas there is no legal basis for such a ban. It is not against the law.


But in this case we are not talking about people but against beliefs and ideas. There is a huge difference. And we are not talking about factual events such as the Haulocaust or evolution. We are talking about beliefs.

The call for a ban on blasphemy is asking people to repress comments on a belief that is not established. It is not the same as ccomments against the people who hold such a belief.

You may question Judaism and criticize it or zionism but you can't be against Jewish people.

You can't be against Muslim people but you can oppose some of their beliefs.

The question will be whether a call for such a ban will be legal or constitutional in many countries.Not whether it is moral.
You can lik Richard Dawkins campaign against Christianity but you can't campaign against people who are christians.

The law of the land decides what is acceptable and what is not. We use legal argument to construct the law.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Interestingly the reason we don't make dnying global warming illegal is bcause it is not a group individual or a past event.

It is a theory....

You can stray from orthodoxy all you want just not from the law in the country you live in.

You don't have to make justification morally for a case regarding rights you have to make it legally.

You can condemn the law but you must obey it.

The courts make certain it is applied fairly in each case.

The law in Islamic countries is obviously vry different from the west but westerners still have to oby it there or face consequences. The west sometimes condemns these laws as they have the right to condemn law in the west.

But they still have to be obeyed and can only be changed through due process.

The type of ban you are talking about i don't think would ever get through that due process. It is not compatible with most law in the west.

hatrickpatrick

The Bishop! wrote: »

The libertarian position is obviously unworkable in my opinion; it simply has to be tempered with measures to stop incitement to hatred. It cannot feasably exist in it's purest form in modern society.

Why not?

hatrickpatrick

wes wrote: »

I remember watching Sky News for a bit, with people banging on about how people need to accept free speech etc, and along the bottom, this guy was found guilty of insulting British soldiers:

Azhar Ahmed Found Guilty For 'Unacceptable' Facebook Jibes At Dead British Soldiers

What the guy said was nasty, but surely he shouldn't be in court over it. Surely British soldiers have no right to not be offended, even if what is being said is especially nasty. I heard of no one defending free speech for this guy either.

Britain is an absolute basket case when it comes to Freedom of Speech. The sooner its citizens learn how to use proxies and other tools to prevent anyone from seeing who they are, the better.

Einhard

@ Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy....

You're not addressing any of my points, so I'm not going to address yours.

This is my point: We say we are for freedom of expression. We tell this to Muslims when they complain about anti-Muslim films and cartoons. And yet, when one examines it, it is clear that we are not for freedom of expression in all instances, but have a skewed version of it. That's the point of my posts. Address that if you want but please stop dragging it off topic.

Laminations

Einhard, there is a difference between what someone is - gay, black, diabled, Jew, Muslim - and what someone believes - gods, aliens, fairies, homeopathy. Criticising, parodying or insulting what someone believes in is covered under freedom of speech while criticising, demonising, or discriminating against a group or a person is not, or at least where it is it needs to be justified.

The Bishop!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not?

Just to clarify, the pure libertarian position that i'm referring to would be the one espoused by Ron Paul in the U.S. for example.

Paul voted against and many libertarians vehemently disagree with the Civil Rights Act (that outlaws major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and women).

For instance, Paul thinks that it should be someone's right to open a bar or restaurant and make it 'whites only'.

This type of 'freedom' is counterproductive in modern society imo.

Einhard

Laminations wrote: »

Einhard, there is a difference between what someone is - gay, black, diabled, Jew, Muslim - and what someone believes - gods, aliens, fairies, homeopathy. Criticising, parodying or insulting what someone believes in is covered under freedom of speech while criticising, demonising, or discriminating against a group or a person is not, or at least where it is it needs to be justified.

I realise that, but as I've pointed out twice now, several European countries have laws against offending or insulting specific groups. Not about inciting hatred against them, merely offending their sensibilities.

Also: you say that criticising a group is not covered by freedom of expression. And that's my point.

StormFront Representative

I agree with the OP. The West is shamelessly hypocritical about free speech. Our governments herald it as a corner stone of our societies, yet you can't air your views publicly without fear of retribution.

Boards.ie is a microcosm of this, where dissenting posters are simply banned and silenced. An echo chamber, devoid of intelligent and rational discussion, seems to be their ultimate goal.

Corkfeen

StormFront Representative wrote: »

I agree with the OP. The West is shamelessly hypocritical about free speech. Our governments herald it as a corner stone of our societies, yet you can't air your views publicly without fear of retribution.

Boards.ie is a microcosm of this, where dissenting posters are simply banned and silenced. An echo chamber, devoid of intelligent and rational discussion, seems to be their ultimate goal.

I really don't think anyone expects a rational discussion from a Stormfront representative. Boards.ie is not a democracy so can't really be classified as a microcosm.

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

Einhard wrote: »

@ Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy....

You're not addressing any of my points, so I'm not going to address yours.

This is my point: We say we are for freedom of expression. We tell this to Muslims when they complain about anti-Muslim films and cartoons.We say we are for freedom of expression. That's the point of my posts. Address that if you want but please stop dragging it off topic.

Einhard you are being very unreasonable and coping out i am adressing your posts and your arguments i am simply presenting a reasoned argument as to why you may be wrong. The thread has not gone off topic at all my posts are entirely relevant.

We say we are for freedom of expression.

Yes as it is defined by law in each country. And possibly also how it is defined socially. Which is obviously going to be different from how the Islamic world sees it. But there you have it those are the definitions of the west and Islam and they often diverge.

And yet, when one examines it, it is clear that we are not for freedom of expression in all instances, but have a skewed version of it

How is it clear ?

How is it skewed in ONE country establish how the legal system in detail is applying double standards?

I accept the legal systm is not perfect but nothing is.


Obviously 'THE WEST' is a vague term. There is no such thing as the west and if you took 'THE WEST' as a whole yes you would end up with many contradictions.

Many individuals will have differing opinions and the only way to regulate public space (even if it is possible) is through law applied equally to all.

All have to obey the same secular laws. These laws and legal practitionrs define freedom of expression and how it is applied according to law.


And this is possible the most important point I shall make. The only just way to influence this is through litigation. If Islamic clerics actually decided to put a case togther and go to trial to achieve their goal and argue their case they would achieve more.

Even if they were double standards by the way that is a moral arguement. The law is the law. It really does not matter how you feel about it.

you say that criticising a group is not covered by freedom of expression. And that's my point.

Why should it be?

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy

StormFront Representative wrote: »

I agree with the OP. The West is shamelessly hypocritical about free speech. Our governments herald it as a corner stone of our societies, yet you can't air your views publicly without fear of retribution.

Boards.ie is a microcosm of this, where dissenting posters are simply banned and silenced. An echo chamber, devoid of intelligent and rational discussion, seems to be their ultimate goal.

It is their forum they may run it how they wish. I think you might be biased though.

hatrickpatrick

The Bishop! wrote: »

Just to clarify, the pure libertarian position that i'm referring to would be the one espoused by Ron Paul in the U.S. for example.

Paul voted against and many libertarians vehemently disagree with the Civil Rights Act (that outlaws major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and women).

For instance, Paul thinks that it should be someone's right to open a bar or restaurant and make it 'whites only'.

This type of 'freedom' is counterproductive in modern society imo.

We're talking about freedom of speech. Those are actions, not speech.

Chuck Stone

I agree with the premise in the OP but I think it should be noted that most nations described as 'the west' are centuries ahead of other medieval ****-holes like Saudi Arabia.

Also, you can make a living in the west as a critical public intellectual (see, Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky). Public intellectuals in the former east were sent to gulags or simply liquidated. There are no critical public intellectuals in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc because it would mean almost certain death.

Edit: With freedom comes responsibility. Take that scourge of the north Ian Paisley; he used his freedom of speech to whip people into a state of murderous paranoia. You can be certain a lot of innocent people were murdered because of the effect Paisley's psychotic raving had on their killers.

'Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners'.

Ian Paisley

After a loyalist rally in 1968, he justified the burning of Catholic homes

philologos

Einhard wrote: »

The non-evidenciary nature of religion means it doesn't receive protection under libel laws. To liken criticisms, parodies or simple insults against a (makey uppy) religion to comments from holocaust deniers is treading on dangerous ground.

That is only an atheists assumption with no substance whatsoever. It's a rubbish reason for opposing blasphemy laws too. Why do you expect society to assume what atheists assume about God, or about faith?

The Bishop!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We're talking about freedom of speech. Those are actions, not speech.

True. I don't want to go off topic too much, but to give another example of a libertarian position relating more to speech maybe.

Please someone correct me if i'm wrong, but if i was to go around shouting "Muslims out of our country now!" or "Jews out now!", a Ron Paul type libertarian would defend my right to say that or print it or broadcast it without sanction.
Similarly, if i painted "Muslims out!" in 2 foot letters on the wall of my house, their stance would be that i'm perfectly within my rights.

I personally think the European approach is far more sensible. That freedom of speech is respected, but hate speech should be discouraged by some means.

thebman

The Bishop! wrote: »

True. I don't want to go off topic too much, but to give another example of a libertarian position relating more to speech maybe.

Please someone correct me if i'm wrong, but if i was to go around shouting "Muslims out of our country now!" or "Jews out now!", a Ron Paul type libertarian would defend my right to say that or print it or broadcast it without sanction.
Similarly, if i painted "Muslims out!" in 2 foot letters on the wall of my house, their stance would be that i'm perfectly within my rights.

I personally think the European approach is far more sensible. That freedom of speech is respected, but hate speech should be discouraged by some means.

I disagree, I think Ron Paul would probably give the same answer in both situations.

Now a right wing Republican might be hypocritical on the issue like Sarah Palin.

All I know is I don't care either way and I'm an equal opportunities joker. Among my friends, mocking catholicism is much more popular than mocking Muslims probably because most of us went to schools run by catholics.

Not one of my friends has been told he shouldn't be saying that except maybe by their parents.

hatrickpatrick

The Bishop! wrote: »

True. I don't want to go off topic too much, but to give another example of a libertarian position relating more to speech maybe.

Please someone correct me if i'm wrong, but if i was to go around shouting "Muslims out of our country now!" or "Jews out now!", a Ron Paul type libertarian would defend my right to say that or print it or broadcast it without sanction.
Similarly, if i painted "Muslims out!" in 2 foot letters on the wall of my house, their stance would be that i'm perfectly within my rights.

I personally think the European approach is far more sensible. That freedom of speech is respected, but hate speech should be discouraged by some means.

Taking action to further those statements should indeed be illegal, but you should be allowed to simply say it if you want to.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~ Voltaire

Of course, should anyone act on your statements they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminalizing you for simply saying it goes much too far in my view.

Jonny7

Einhard wrote: »

@ Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy....

You're not addressing any of my points, so I'm not going to address yours.

This is my point: We say we are for freedom of expression. We tell this to Muslims when they complain about anti-Muslim films and cartoons. And yet, when one examines it, it is clear that we are not for freedom of expression in all instances, but have a skewed version of it. That's the point of my posts. Address that if you want but please stop dragging it off topic.

Surely that example has more to do with religious (in)tolerance?

As for the bolded sentence, well I suggest you don't use your "freedom of expression" to run down the street yelling fire or chatting about bombs in the airport queue.

Eggy Baby!

Boards.ie is a microcosm of this, where dissenting posters are simply banned and silenced. An echo chamber, devoid of intelligent and rational discussion, seems to be their ultimate goal.

By 'dissenting' you mean...? I consider my views to pretty unorthodox at times, yet I am still here..

Laminations

Einhard wrote: »

I realise that, but as I've pointed out twice now, several European countries have laws against offending or insulting specific groups. Not about inciting hatred against them, merely offending their sensibilities.

Also: you say that criticising a group is not covered by freedom of expression. And that's my point.

No. Criticising a group is not covered under freedom of expression (though it depends on the nature of the criticism) and that group, no matter who they are, have a legal route that they can take if they feel maligned. So muslims as a group are protected equally by libel, slander, defamation and incitement to hatred laws. Their beliefs however are not. Criticising a groups beliefs is covered under freedom of expression and cannot be adjudicated on in court due to no evidence about gods and little accurate information on prophets.

Also I haven't seen similar criticism of group beliefs be hypocritically punished in Europe. If the two group examples you refer to are in the text box of the OP I don't see them. All I see is a hodgepodge of countries and their separate systems of law which will be more or less conservative. The Netherlands seems to have the widest ranging laws against offence but they cover religion too. But in reality, generally in Europe and 'the West' all groups come in for parody and laughs are made at their expense - and people feel quite free to do this, no matter how crude their comedy is to others. Your handful of examples does not make an entire continent hypocritical.

So which criticism of a groups beliefs has reaulted in punishment in Europe?

Finally just a point about criticism of Islam (not Muslims). It is very common for comments made against Islam to be reframed as comments about muslims. Somehow if you have a problem with Islam then you must hate all muslims. I think Scientology is a complete joke but I don't hate Tom Cruise or John Travolta. I should be allowed air my views that Scientology is a joke and their alien gods are spaghetti monsters, but my beliefs of their beliefs shouldn't be used to incite hatred against followers.

Its a thin somewhat flexible line surrounded on either side by a grey area but that's what you get in many areas of the law.

Laminations

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaTeacsSoQ#

That's a good video on it and where I had thought your OP was coming from. There are many topics where jokes can be deemed as socially taboo and crossing the line. The problem is if we rush to make something socially taboo, to make people think twice about crude comments against a religion, we might make the mistake of limiting all criticism or negative comments about religion or belief system. It would be a retrograde step. The issue of insulting Islam or any other religion should remain out of the legal system. It is unlike comments on race or ability or ethnicity or sexuality.

You should be allowed have views on views once your views out inciting hatred. Denying the Holocaust in Germany is particularly offensive and illegal due to historical issues. You will get contextual differences in what is acceptable and what is not in all countries.

BlaasForRafa

philologos wrote: »

That is only an atheists assumption with no substance whatsoever. It's a rubbish reason for opposing blasphemy laws too. Why do you expect society to assume what atheists assume about God, or about faith?

Because its based on evidence and facts, religion is not. Its not atheists fault that some people believe in utter nonsense, religious people should not be protected from being told that they are idiots.

This is where the argument conflating blasphemy laws with anti holocaust-denier laws is false. The holocaust actually happened, if denying the existence of the holocaust were to become the norm then the likelihood of it happening again increases.

philologos

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Because its based on evidence and facts, religion is not. Its not atheists fault that some people believe in utter nonsense, religious people should not be protected from being told that they are idiots.

This is where the argument conflating blasphemy laws with anti holocaust-denier laws is false. The holocaust actually happened, if denying the existence of the holocaust were to become the norm then the likelihood of it happening again increases.

An assumption isn't based on evidence or 'facts'. If it were we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

I'm anti-blasphemy laws. Yet I believe there's evidence to suggest that Christianity is true.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

I'm anti-blasphemy laws. Yet I believe there's evidence to suggest that Christianity is true.

What evidence?
Do you have verifiable evidence that god.exists?

Wiggles88

philologos wrote: »

Yet I believe there's evidence to suggest that Christianity is true.

I love that one:
My beliefs are based on evidence.
Whats your evidence based on?
.....belief


:pac:

Chuck Stone

Derailment imminent. Brace for impact.

philologos

Wiggles88 wrote: »

I love that one:
My beliefs are based on evidence.
Whats your evidence based on?
.....belief


:pac:

You'd do better if that was actually what I said. I didn't say it was based on belief at all. I've posted about my reasons for believing in Jesus many many times before and I'm more than happy to do so again if you PM me or go on the Christianity forum.

My main point in calling that out was to suggest that law shouldn't be based on atheistic claims concerning other belief systems. That's as much a violation of impartiality concerning religion or lack of religion as someone trying to pass laws because a particular holy book said so.

The reason we should be anti-blasphemy laws is because we do support liberty of speech and liberty of conscience, not because we want to apply atheistic tripe to law.

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Derailment imminent. Brace for impact.

Well I think the mods would allow a slight thread derailment for evidence of the existence of the Christian god, no?

And it cuts to the very heart of the issue, that religious beliefs cannot and should not be treated the same as race, ethnicity, disability etc. You have a right to your good name and protections in the law against libel and slander etc. but you've no right to demand those same protections for your gods, prophets, imaginary friends, alien overloads or any other such transcendental beings.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

You'd do better if that was actually what I said. I didn't say it was based on belief at all. I've posted about my reasons for believing in Jesus many many times before and I'm more than happy to do so again if you PM me or go on the Christianity forum.

My main point in calling that out was to suggest that law shouldn't be based on atheistic claims concerning other belief systems. That's as much a violation of impartiality concerning religion or lack of religion as someone trying to pass laws because a particular holy book said so.

The reason we should be anti-blasphemy laws is because we do support liberty of speech and liberty of conscience, not because we want to apply atheistic tripe to law.

A holy book saying so is not comparable to the weight of research and evidence saying so. Laws can be tested, information gathered and assessed to distinguish good laws and bad laws. While philosophy (ethics especially) should inform legal interpretation and policy that is very different to religion.

You don't believe based on evidence, you believe as a matter of faith, the point is you don't require evidence for your religious beliefs, nor can any evidence be provided to support or refute those beliefs.

philologos

Laminations wrote: »

A holy book saying so is not comparable to the weight of research and evidence saying so. Laws can be tested, information gathered and assessed to distinguish good laws and bad laws. While philosophy (ethics especially) should inform legal interpretation and policy that is very different to religion.

You don't believe based on evidence, you believe as a matter of faith, the point is you don't require evidence for your religious beliefs, nor can any evidence be provided to support or refute those beliefs.

You claim that the research and evidence shows Christianity to be without basis. I'm saying that claim really isn't founded. Where we certainly find out that that is false is if we look to the central thesis of the Christian faith, and see how well it holds up. Something I'm more than happy to walk anyone through via PM or on the Christianity forum.

Atheist claims that there is no foundation for Christian belief, or any other belief have no place in law. If I found out my MP was advocating atheism while seating in parliament that's their vote gone as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree with you, I do believe on evidence. I believe on eyewitness testimony, I believe on Christianity's impact in my life and in the lives of others, I believe also because Christianity is manifest in reality - concerning the origins of creation, concerning morality, concerning the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus. Biblical history, archaeology also show the Bible to be an accurate record of history in many respects (take a walk around the British Museum in London sometime). The New Testament itself is the most authentic account in ancient history that we have in the world today due to the large number of manuscripts. The New Testament encourages skeptical thinking and examinations of the claims of the authors continually. There's more evidence for Christianity than there is for atheism as far as I can tell. So of course I'll challenge your claim that there isn't any.

Atheism has no role in law, or legal interpretation. Atheistic bias shouldn't be allowed to govern our societies. You claim that atheism is based on "research and evidence" but this simply isn't true.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

You claim that the research and evidence shows Christianity to be without basis.

No I don't claim that. I'm saying that no evidence can be provided to support or refute the main belief in a religion - the existence of a god.