The Beginning of The End for Free Speech?

[A_man_about_a_dog]

Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been charged with making anti-Islamic comments. The leader of the Freedom Party has consistently campaigned against what he describes as the "fascist" nature of both the Koran, and Islam in general.

Mr Wilders was the man behind the 2008 film "Fitna". The film was intended to highlight the "fascist" and conflictual nature of Islam, and in particular the Koran.

Mr Wilders has said that the ruling was a "black day for me and for freedom of speech. I am shaken. I had absolutely not expected it."

From the BBC

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

Firstly, let me make it clear.... this thread is not about the virtues of Islam or the wrongs of Islam. This thread is about freedom of speech. If you want to discuss the merits and demerits of Islam... do it elsewhere, please. If you want to discuss free speech... please, join in.

Now, I am by no means a supporter of Mr Wilders or of the views which he espouses, however, I am somewhat perturbed by the Courts decision to prosecute him. The man made a film, albeit an inflammatory one, but nothing more. He has not gone about actively calling for the removal or exclusion of Muslims within Dutch society. He has not called for physical acts of violence against Muslims. He has simply expressed a personal view, a view which I'm sure many others also hold.

I cannot help but wonder whether the decision to prosecute Wilders will create a dangerous precedent insofar as the expression of negative personal opinions about a particular community, religion or nation could be seen as inciting hatred. If people cannot express their own personal views without fear of prosecution, it is my belief that the state has overstepped it's mark. So long as the views being expressed do not promote acts of physical or psychological violence against a particular group or community, I believe it is essential that these views be publicly aired.

For if we fail to promote discussion and debate amongst those with competing opinions, how can we ever expect to solve the various conflicts which adversely affect the relations between communities?

Free speech is one of the most essential components of any modern society. Without it the very fabric of a community is under threat. Whether we agree with the views being expressed or not, the mere fact these views are being publicly expressed gives us the opportunity to respond in whatever manner we see fit.

It is for these reasons that I feel a move towards censorship or prosecution of those who openly express themselves is a regressive move and could cause far more damage to societies than the right to free speech will ever do.

Thoughts?

[Asi-Irish]

In some countries, you can be gaoled for questioning the orthodox history of the Holocaust.

I think Mr. Wilders should enjoy freedom of speech, just like anyone else. At the same time, he is a sh*t stirrer and is only trying to drum up support for his party.

[meriwether2]

Yeah, it's always easier to defend freedom of speech when the speaker is identifiable with, and the target is a perceived monster.
Hypothetically, think of a reporter being banged up in Zimbabwe for writing the 'truth'.

Its a little harder in this case. He's not exactly saying nice things is he? However, on balance it does look like an open and shut case of his freedom being impared.


<inserts cliched incorrectly attributed Voltaire Quote here>.

[A_man_about_a_dog]

In some countries, you can be gaoled for questioning the orthodox history of the Holocaust.

I think Mr. Wilders should enjoy freedom of speech, just like anyone else. At the same time, he is a sh*t stirrer and is only trying to drum up support for his party.

I'm well aware of Holocaust denial being a crime in certain countries, and given the highly emotive context within which the Holocaust is viewed in those countries, I can see the reasoning behind it. However, I also believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important aspects of any modern society.

If people want to 'stir sh!t' and deny that the Holocaust ever happened, let them. The evidence with which their claims can be refuted is there for all to see.

It is the same for most issues, if people want to lie and spin, let them. Their lies and spinning provide the very basis upon which a rebuttal can be founded.

IMO, the more we let people like David Irving speak in public, the more opportunities people will have to refute his claims and highlight the faults in their arguments. Can anyone honestly say that is a bad thing?

[seabhcan]

I think hate speech does need to be regulated, and this ejit probably does have a case to answer.

There is a fine line between freedom of speech (meaning freedom to criticise, as no-one is ever prevented from being flattering, even in dictatorships) and telling hateful lies to drum up personal political support. The courts need to decide.

However, specific laws against discussing certain topics have no place in a democracy. Laws against discussing the holocaust should be scrapped.

[setanta]

Freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom and treating it as such betrays a superficial understanding of this important human right.

Any casual reading of the various international treaties and charters on fundamental rights will show you that "freedom of speech" is usually qualified by the application of local laws. The question for us is not that freedom of speech is limited by law, but what precisely those legal imits are.

In democratic states the limits are typically:

(a) slander
(b) misrepresenation (e.g. in commercial advertising or professional services)
(c) perjury in a court of law or in responding to a properly constituted authority, and
(d) incitement, what is often termed "hate speech".

In some countries, notable Germany and Austria, the limit wrt hate-speech extends to include holocaust-denial or expression of support for nazi ideology.

I don't know the details of this particular Dutch-filmmaker's complaint, and have no particular interest given his reputation, What I wil say that quite often those who complain most bitterly about restrictions on their freedom of speech are often those that admire people who have denied more than freedom of spech to millions in their time.

[Objecteev]

Have you all watched the movie? It would help make this debate less theoretical..
Fitna The Movie and beyond fitna
This will help you understand both the context and accusations.
Fitna is not only excerpts from the Koran and Hadif. It is also the context of how those things are actually used today to justify evil doings. The movie brings recordings and words or actual high religious preachers to put things into perspective.

If misrepresentation of Islam would have been a real issue, it would have likely made it to headlines and serve to create laws against doing that. But this is ignoring so so many horrendous things done in its name.
(I am personally while not against belief in general, am against all religions)

Maybe more important and interesting is a different TV program called "[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816]Dispatch - Undercover Mosque[/ame]"

[Clanrickard]

I think hate speech does need to be regulated, and this ejit probably does have a case to answer.

.

Is that so? Can you point out what was said and why it was hate speech? I familiar with Wilders and I think he hits the nail on the head which is why Islamists and their useful idiot friends on the left are trying to shut him up. He is causing the Dutch people to ask questions about where their country is heading.

[Clanrickard]

It's worth noting that he is being prosecuted for the film Fitna for which last year the courts refused to prosecute him. Clearly the left and the islamists have succeeded in their unremitting campaign against him for daring to speak the truth.

[yanshuf]

Setanta:

(a) slander
(b) misrepresenation (e.g. in commercial advertising or professional services)
(c) perjury in a court of law or in responding to a properly constituted authority, and
(d) incitement, what is often termed "hate speech".

and which of these do these Norwegian caricaturists break?


Institute for Global Jewish Affairs ? Global Antisemitism, Anti-Israelism, Jewish Studies