What do we mean by Free Speech
Discussion
Vince Cable is not someone I agree with often but he made an interesting point on last week's QT, namely that society as whole is talking a lot about free speech in the wake of last week's events, but of course we don't actually have completely free speech.
From libel laws, to safety (you can't shout fire in a theatre was VC's example), to the illegality in many countries of holocaust denial, to the law against incitement to violence/hate, to homophobic or racist statements......we have free speech in the West strictly subject to a legal framework of rules
I am in total support of the right of a publication to depict Mohammed in a cartoon should they wish, although an element of context is required (e.g. incitement to violence) and indeed the rights of free speech in general, but it certainly makes it somewhat more complicated as a principle given the framework that applies as described above.
Of course no right minded person can ever even begin to justify violence, let alone murder, in response to those cartoons but I do have a certain level of sympathy with the questioning of how it can be legal to publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed but not one that denies the holocaust (and I say that as a British jew whose grandparents fought in the British army in WWII against the Nazis). I'm not saying I agree, simply that it's not black and white, to me anyway
I'm also not saying that I disagree with the rules as they stand, but it is interesting that for most of us (I recognise some do quite literally want complete freedom of speech without any limits), when we keep saying we believe in 'freedom of speech', we in reality mean we believe in 'freedom of speech to a point, within a framework that we somehow have to all agree upon'. Who decides on that framework ? Should it ever be changed ? Who changes it ? No easy answers....
From libel laws, to safety (you can't shout fire in a theatre was VC's example), to the illegality in many countries of holocaust denial, to the law against incitement to violence/hate, to homophobic or racist statements......we have free speech in the West strictly subject to a legal framework of rules
I am in total support of the right of a publication to depict Mohammed in a cartoon should they wish, although an element of context is required (e.g. incitement to violence) and indeed the rights of free speech in general, but it certainly makes it somewhat more complicated as a principle given the framework that applies as described above.
Of course no right minded person can ever even begin to justify violence, let alone murder, in response to those cartoons but I do have a certain level of sympathy with the questioning of how it can be legal to publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed but not one that denies the holocaust (and I say that as a British jew whose grandparents fought in the British army in WWII against the Nazis). I'm not saying I agree, simply that it's not black and white, to me anyway
I'm also not saying that I disagree with the rules as they stand, but it is interesting that for most of us (I recognise some do quite literally want complete freedom of speech without any limits), when we keep saying we believe in 'freedom of speech', we in reality mean we believe in 'freedom of speech to a point, within a framework that we somehow have to all agree upon'. Who decides on that framework ? Should it ever be changed ? Who changes it ? No easy answers....
Eclassy said:
Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist called Siné in 2008 after he refused to apologise for a joke that said Sarkozy's son would do well in life only because he married a Jewish woman. What happened to Siné's freedom of speech?
Dieudonne, the french comedian has had the French government use dodgy judges to ban his comic shows where he mocks Jews and the holocaust. What happened to his freedom of speech?
Africans suffered a great deal more than Jews over hundreds of years during slavery but there is no damn law saying you cant mock Africans or the slave era.
What is so special about Jews?
It is an issue but there is an explanation. For the black population, they have their one 'thing' - the 'N word'. Above all else, that is seen to be the unacceptable depth which defines someone as racist (I don't necessarily agree, I'm talking about society's view as a whole. For jews, it's hitler/nazis in general but in particular above all else, holocaust denial. Each group have their one 'thing'. Put to one side how rational or not it is, it's the reality. For Muslims, it would appear that their 'thing' is the prophet Mohammed being depicted a certain way. Possibly. If so, I can see the imperfections of the 'boundaries' of free speech - it's a very valid argumentDieudonne, the french comedian has had the French government use dodgy judges to ban his comic shows where he mocks Jews and the holocaust. What happened to his freedom of speech?
Africans suffered a great deal more than Jews over hundreds of years during slavery but there is no damn law saying you cant mock Africans or the slave era.
What is so special about Jews?
For those posters who believe there should be some boundaries, the issue of who decides what those boundaries are and how they decide is incredibly complex with no 2 people ever having quite the same opinion
It is in fact what goes back to my OP - the reason I struggle to decide my own feelings on this one.
It is also perhaps worth noting that whilst holocaust denial is illegal in a number of countries, primarily Germany and some of it's neighbours, it is not illegal in France or the UK. Instead it rightly or wrongly comes under racial hatred/incitement to hatred laws, which of course cover all races & religions. Duodena clearly comes under that - have you heard his stuff ? But then if so, should Charlie Hebdo come under the same rules when it comes to Islam ? When does it transcend into incitement to hatred ? No easy answers....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff