The Beginning of The End for Free Speech?

[Alterego]

Just thought it would be interesting to note what Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has to say about the right to free speech and the freedom of information:



IMO it's interesting to note how the UDHR recognises the right to freedom of expression, while effectively viewing the denial or limitation of free speech as a human rights breach. If one believes this to be the case and views absolute free speech as a natural right, then question must be asked: should states which limit the freedom of speech and expression be treated as human rights abusers?

Some of the more obvious examples of such states include China, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.

Now I know we're moving into fairly conceptual territory, but I think that the question does need to be asked given the fact that freedom of speech/expression is explicitly outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet we can see so many flagrant abuses of that right in the world today.

I assume you'll be starting a campaign to urge the immediate release of Abu Hamza and Abu Izzedeen, both imprisoned for exercising their right to free speech. Good luck with that

[setanta]

I assume you'll be starting a campaign to urge the immediate release of Abu Hamza and Abu Izzedeen, both imprisoned for exercising their right to free speech. Good luck with that

This illustrates the weakness in A_Man_About_a_Dog's superficial description of the right to fredom of speech and expression.

Abu Hamza al-Masri was gaoled, entirely correctly in my view, for incitement:

WIKIPEDIA: On 19 October 2004, Abu Hamza was charged with 16 crimes under the provisions of various British statutes, including encouraging the murder of non-Muslims, and intent to stir up racial hatred.

The trial initially commenced on 5 July 2005 was adjourned and resumed on 9 January 2006. On 7 February 2006, Abu Hamza was found guilty on eleven charges and not guilty on four:

Guilty of six charges of soliciting to murder under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861; not guilty on three further such charges

Guilty of three charges related to "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" under the Public Order Act 1986, not guilty on one further such charge

Guilty of one further charge of owning recordings related to "stirring up racial hatred"

Guilty of one charge of possessing "terrorist encyclopaedia" under the Terrorism Act, s58

Abu Izzadeen was also gaoled, entirely correctly in my view, for incitement:

WIKIPEDIA:

February 2007
British police arrested Abu Izadeen on charges of inciting terrorism on 2007-02-08. A spokesman for Scotland Yard said the arrest is related to an "on-going inquiry," involving a speech Abu Izadeen gave in the West Midlands area in 2006, which predates the 20 September 2006 incident. The video was downloaded by Glen Jenvey


April 2007
He was arrested again in a pre-dawn police raid on 2007-04-24 under the Terrorism Act 2000 "in connection with inciting others to commit acts of terrorism overseas and terrorist fundraising". The police raid came after information was past via �Å—�Žm‚ð–ÚŽw‚»‚¤ website released a video to a TV network. The video was uncovered by Glen Jenvey


April 2008
On 2008-04-17 Izzadeen was among six men convicted at Kingston Crown Court of supporting terrorism, while the jury failed to reach a verdict on a third charge of encouraging terrorism. He was subsequently jailed for four and a half years.

[Boggle]

Miss that point and you end with a superficial discussion about giving platforms to nazis and other hate-mongers because it's their freedom of speech to peddle their views.

Personally I think anyone should be allowed to say what they like and in the awful event that someone turns out to have a point you would get to address that point in a timely fashion. Otherwise you run the risk of an underground group of extremists whe come out well organised and angry - which causes overreactions.

For example, you cannot defame another person.

No, I cannot represent that as fact. I can say what I like as long as it is clearly my own opinion.

You cannot misrepresent yourself or any product or service you offer for sale or hire.

happens all the time - switch on the telly and watch a few adds. There is a line though and if you cross it its called fraud.

Perhaps particularly importantly, especially for the discussion here, I cannot incite others to commit a criminal offence or incite others to discriminate against or hate other people because of their religious faith or lack thereof, their colour or ethnicity, or their sexual orientation.

There is a difefrence between prejudice and fact though. I think Scientologists are crazy and the religion is a farce. I am free to say that much as I am free to criticise the catholic and muslim faith. I am also free to highlight certain aspects of any particular religion and warn of the dangers - much as I think the catholic/muslim faiths stance towards homosexuality is drivel.


There should be no limits to freedom of speech as it only allows people to fool themselves.

-------------------------------------------------

The muslim faith does have to acknolwedge the problems within itself and reform much the same as the catholic church had/has to. It's fact not fiction and holding your hands over your ears screaming does more harm than good in the long run - ask the jews in germany 70 years ago! Back then the perception was that the jews controlled the money and this was never dealt with, resulting in a giant hatred towards them and eventually genocide.

[Alterego]

This illustrates the weakness in A_Man_About_a_Dog's superficial description of the right to fredom of speech and expression.

Abu Hamza al-Masri was gaoled, entirely correctly in my view, for incitement:




Abu Izzadeen was also gaoled, entirely correctly in my view, for incitement:

As should Wilders, Spencer, Quinn, Trampas etc...

[setanta]

Personally I think anyone should be allowed to say what they like and in the awful event that someone turns out to have a point you would get to address that point in a timely fashion. Otherwise you run the risk of an underground group of extremists whe come out well organised and angry - which causes overreactions.

The evidence doesn't support his. It's a bit like idea of a silent majority and other political myths. What matters is what is said in public. Spreading hate and inciting others to hatred is not simply part of a no-consequences political discourse. Such words have a real impact on the lives and security of real people. It is no coincidence that the incidence of racially-motivated violent assaults, for example, increase dramatically in areas where nazis and other hate-mongers are allowed to march or to publicly incite hatred.

That's why I argue that denying platforms to nazis and other hate-mongers is not about the superficial claim that freedom of speech is an absolute right (a patently false claim) but rather it is about protecting the lives and securiy of our fellow citizens.

No, I cannot represent that as fact. I can say what I like as long as it is clearly my own opinion.

This is the defence of "fair comment". While that defence provides some limited prtection against being sued for defaming a public figure, like a politician, it is of absolutely no use if you defame a prvate or semi-private person. Try it out sometime an see just how threadbare that defence actually is.

happens all the time - switch on the telly and watch a few adds. There is a line though and if you cross it its called fraud.

People steal stuff and that's illegal. It happens al the time ... oh, right, it's OK then.

There is a difefrence between prejudice and fact though. I think Scientologists are crazy and the religion is a farce. I am free to say that much as I am free to criticise the catholic and muslim faith. I am also free to highlight certain aspects of any particular religion and warn of the dangers - much as I think the catholic/muslim faiths stance towards homosexuality is drivel.

You are right there is a difference, that's why I worded my comments as precisely as I did. The restriction is on incitement either to commit a criminal act or to hatred. That is illegal and is an essential restriction on the freedoms of speeech and expression.

There should be no limits to freedom of speech as it only allows people to fool themselves.

But there are limits as I have oultined above. And these limits are essential in a democracy. That's why if the debate is restricted to a superficial repetition of the manifestly false claim that these freeedoms are absolute you get nowhere. It is simply not how the real world works.

The muslim faith does have to acknolwedge the problems within itself and reform much the same as the catholic church had/has to. It's fact not fiction and holding your hands over your ears screaming does more harm than good in the long run - ask the jews in germany 70 years ago! Back then the perception was that the jews controlled the money and this was never dealt with, resulting in a giant hatred towards them and eventually genocide.

And part of the way to address these very real dangers that you correctly raise is to ensure that debate and criticism address the real issues and are not used as cover for incitement to hatred or other criminality.

[murf13]

I wonder how quickly this little ditty will be recycled by europhobes into an actual accusation of what the Lisbon Treaty will bring about if it is ratified.

Counting ... 5 .... 4 .... 3 ...........

SCILENCE!!!!!
or you will be sent off to reeducation camp immediately.

[murf13]

Why is Seabchan correct? What has Wilders said exactly that is hate speech? Nobody seems to have an answer.

101 masacracS

[CrapCountry.ie]

[ame=http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=vAxUh7IL2FQ]YouTube - Newscaster speaks out against Islam.[/ame]

The problem with this whole episope, is the TRUTH hurts. END of argument.

[cathal maguidhir]

European Union

The European Union's executive Commission proposed a European Union wide anti-racism law in 2001, but European Union states failed to agree on the balance between prohibiting racism and freedom of expression.[60] An attempt to ban the swastika across the EU in early 2005 failed after objections from the British Government and others. In early 2007, while Germany held the European Union presidency, Berlin proposed that the European Union should follow German Criminal Law and criminalize the denial of the Holocaust and the display of Nazi symbols including the swastika, which is based on the Ban on the Symbols of unconstitutional Organisations Act. This led to an opposition campaign by Hindu groups across Europe against a ban on the swastika. They pointed out that the swastika has been around for 5,000 years as a symbol of peace.[61][62] The proposal to ban the swastika was dropped by Berlin from the proposed European Union wide anti-racism laws on January 29, 2007.[60]

[Trampas]

As should Wilders, Spencer, Quinn, Trampas etc...

.....or indeed anyone who understands just what orthodox islam has planned for us and for our descendants.