|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2009 : 12:59:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Simon
Aside from some of theocrats here, most of the political spectrum in the US would not accept such a "solution." Banning "hate speech" by law means giving bureaucrats the ultimate power to decide what speech is "hateful." I believe this would be, and is, deeply undemocratic. |
Is it? As long as the terms are clear and can be debated, the decision would in fact be a public decision, just as all other laws. Unlike the censoring laws in American broadcasting, to take a wild example.
| So Europe has decided. And now it can silence people, including atheists, if they "defame" religion. |
No, it cannot. Nothing in the European hate speech laws I know prevents you from criticizing anything. There is in fact a difference between criticizing something and stereotyping a group and inciting hatred against such a group.
[quote]In the US, antisemitism has not grown out of control due to our freedoms of expression. Groups promoting tolerance can an do use the same freedoms to effectively counter bigots. Free speech is often dirty and noisy, often cruel and obscene. But it works better, I think, than much more dangerous laws against hate speech.
|
I wonder. While I see the dangers of hate speech laws, I see the dangers of not having them as well. It is a question that comes with all laws, how far do personal freedoms go before they interfere with the rights of other persons.
The problem is that I have no idea on the effectiveness of these laws. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 14:05:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Simon
Aside from some of theocrats here, most of the political spectrum in the US would not accept such a "solution." Banning "hate speech" by law means giving bureaucrats the ultimate power to decide what speech is "hateful." I believe this would be, and is, deeply undemocratic. |
Is it? As long as the terms are clear and can be debated, the decision would in fact be a public decision, just as all other laws. Unlike the censoring laws in American broadcasting, to take a wild example.
| So Europe has decided. And now it can silence people, including atheists, if they "defame" religion. |
No, it cannot. Nothing in the European hate speech laws I know prevents you from criticizing anything. There is in fact a difference between criticizing something and stereotyping a group and inciting hatred against such a group.
[quote]In the US, antisemitism has not grown out of control due to our freedoms of expression. Groups promoting tolerance can an do use the same freedoms to effectively counter bigots. Free speech is often dirty and noisy, often cruel and obscene. But it works better, I think, than much more dangerous laws against hate speech.
|
I wonder. While I see the dangers of hate speech laws, I see the dangers of not having them as well. It is a question that comes with all laws, how far do personal freedoms go before they interfere with the rights of other persons.
The problem is that I have no idea on the effectiveness of these laws.
|
I think the danger is that they will be increasingly used to silence debate over religion, including that by atheists.
If I were a European Christian, I might consider the fundamental Muslim statement that Jesus is not divine to be "defamatory" hate speech. I certainly do feel that Islam's "kill the atheists" program is hateful.
I think it's fair to say that there seems to be an increasing influence by Islamists upon European governments. We shall see how the hate speech laws are enforced in practice.
And I think the US has some guilt in promoting the "hate speech" laws in Europe, beginning with the post-war laws meant to prevent Nazi expression in Germany. I think the US took the wrong approach there in getting that institutionalized, though something like that may have been needed in the short term in the immediate post-war years under martial law.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 14:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I wonder. While I see the dangers of hate speech laws, I see the dangers of not having them as well. It is a question that comes with all laws, how far do personal freedoms go before they interfere with the rights of other persons. |
The problem is that we already have laws covering the possible negative effects of speech. It's illegal to incite violence, for example. Hate speech laws are effectively granting people a brand-new right; the right to not even hear certain kinds of talk. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 15:01:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I think the danger is that they will be increasingly used to silence debate over religion, including that by atheists.
If I were a European Christian, I might consider the fundamental Muslim statement that Jesus is not divine to be "defamatory" hate speech. I certainly do feel that Islam's "kill the atheists" program is hateful. |
And if you'd have an actual person saying those things, you might have a case. But as Dave W. pointed out, in many cases you would already be able to prosecute these people without hate speech laws.
The point is that hate speech laws that I am familiar with are quite specific, and such general examples as you mention would fail in court.
| I think it's fair to say that there seems to be an increasing influence by Islamists upon European governments. We shall see how the hate speech laws are enforced in practice. |
It is true that Islam is starting to play it's political part. Muslims are European citizens and thus their viewpoints will start to have influence in politics. We do live in a democracy. Despite a lot of polemics from some directions however, I have yet to see any influence that is more or less than that of other groups in Europe.
And I think the US has some guilt in promoting the "hate speech" laws in Europe, beginning with the post-war laws meant to prevent Nazi expression in Germany. I think the US took the wrong approach there in getting that institutionalized, though something like that may have been needed in the short term in the immediate post-war years under martial law.
|
Perhaps. I think we were quite able to come up with those laws ourselves, thank you very much  . Many of those laws I know of have been a reaction to WWII. Keep in mind that unlike in the UK and USA, the effects of hate speech have been very directly felt in many countries in the European mainland in the form of the deportation of many groups, most notably the Jews. Those laws would have gotten there regardless of the USA. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 15:09:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by tomk80
I wonder. While I see the dangers of hate speech laws, I see the dangers of not having them as well. It is a question that comes with all laws, how far do personal freedoms go before they interfere with the rights of other persons. |
The problem is that we already have laws covering the possible negative effects of speech. It's illegal to incite violence, for example. Hate speech laws are effectively granting people a brand-new right; the right to not even hear certain kinds of talk.
|
As far as I understand hate speech laws, at least in the Netherlands, the difference is in whether the speech is directed at groups or individuals. The goal of these laws is to prevent that the things someone says about a group lead to discrimination and acts of violence against that group. This differs from having the right to not even hear certain kinds of talk.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 16:11:03 [Permalink]
|
But I must ask: is blasphemy hate speech? And if so, how?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 16:19:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
But I must ask: is blasphemy hate speech? And if so, how?
|
No, it is not. At least not according to any hate speech law I know of. It doesn't incite hatred or discriminate towards a group.
In the Netherlands we still have anti-blasphemy laws, a left-over from pre-WW times when Christian parties still had a firm grip on dutch politics. The laws are generally toothless, no case on the basis of these laws has ever lead to a conviction by the courts, at least not in the past 50 years. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 16:34:59 [Permalink]
|
There are laws against violence. Most of us don't have problems with those.
My speech does NOT have the power to force others to violence.
The whole idea that blasphemy causes violence is ridiculous. The cause of the violence is not the words of the blasphemer; it is the belief of the believer that violence is a legitimate response to mere speech - that a religion-based feeling of being "offended" gives one the right to violence. This is simply another attempt to blame the victim for religion-inspired violence.
I wonder how many imams (whatever the plural of imam is) we will see arrested and sentenced for preaching blasphemy against non-islamic religions in islamic nations? How many times have we seen such arrests so far?
One can always think of justifications, many and various, for shutting people up, some of which may even sound vaguely plausible on first blush, but free speech in the public form of deliberation and negotiation of ideas and viewpoints. It is the public mechanism of change and growth and social adaptation. Every attempt to curtail free speech either fails or results in stagnation in the long run. I can see why absolutist types desire stagnation, free inquiry is antithetical to their set-in-stone mentality, but that doesn't mean we should in any sense accommodate them.
BTW: Where are the "moderate" muslims when we need them? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 02/28/2009 16:37:01 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 16:53:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
BTW: Where are the "moderate" muslims when we need them?
|
Probably where most of the "moderate" Christians were during the Bush years. Standing silently and fearfully at the sidelines, keeping their mouths shut.
As for the rest, of what you wrote, amen, Brother!
Oh, just in: The US will join Canada in boycotting the so-called "racism" conference in Geneva which is set to take up the new blasphemy rule. Great!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/28/2009 17:01:51 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 20:50:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by dglas
BTW: Where are the "moderate" muslims when we need them?
|
Probably where most of the "moderate" Christians were during the Bush years. Standing silently and fearfully at the sidelines, keeping their mouths shut.
As for the rest, of what you wrote, amen, Brother!
Oh, just in: The US will join Canada in boycotting the so-called "racism" conference in Geneva which is set to take up the new blasphemy rule. Great!
|
Happy to read that our foreign minister also said that the Netherlands would walk out unless the text was changed. I'll write my representatives to ask about the blasphemy part and urge them to pay attention to that too (if they haven't already). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 22:51:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
The goal of these laws is to prevent that the things someone says about a group lead to discrimination and acts of violence against that group. |
We in the U.S. already have laws aimed at preventing discrimination and acts of violence.| This differs from having the right to not even hear certain kinds of talk. |
But that's the only effect that hate-speech laws have beyond the laws that are already on the books. They make people afraid to speak their minds for fear of offending someone inadvertently and being charged with a "hate crime" even if - as a result of that speech - not one extra person is discriminated against or becomes the victim of violence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2009 : 23:36:29 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
My speech does NOT have the power to force others to violence.
|
No, but in the US (and many other places) inciting violence is not protected speech.
Everything short of that, imo, has to be though.
To quote a famous comedian, "Take away the right to say fuck, and you take away the right to say fuck the government."
I don't think the US is ever going to be in danger of passing a law that prohibits blasphemy, but I worry about other countries doing it. Why? Well, say I travel to a country that is more or less on good terms with the US, but they have an extradition treaty with a country that has one of these anti-blasphemy laws. Say I blaspheme on the internet and one of these countries takes notice and declares me a criminal. The list of places in the world I could safely travel would shrink.
Not that I think anyone pays enough attention to me, personally, that I would ever end up in such a situation, but just the thought makes me cringe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2009 : 01:25:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Happy to read that our foreign minister also said that the Netherlands would walk out unless the text was changed. I'll write my representatives to ask about the blasphemy part and urge them to pay attention to that too (if they haven't already). |
Good for the Netherlands and good for you, Tom!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 12:52:18 [Permalink]
|
Is blasphemy a crime? Evidently, a great many of the visitors to American Atheist think so. From PZ: Yes: 3268 96%
No: 94 2%
Sure, it's going in a strongly sensible direction, but wouldn't a short paragraph explaining why blasphemy is not an actionable crime be more informative? Just asking atheists to state that their existence is not criminal is a no-brainer. And I sure hope they never try to claim that these results support the contention that blasphemy is not a crime. |
PZ adds: | Oops, wait...as is pointed out in the comments, I read this wrong — the poll was going in the wrong direction. I guess I just couldn't believe that such a strong majority was actually endorsing such a ridiculous position. |
This caused me to go back and read it again. I saw nothing that went astray from his original statement.
In my less-than-humble opinion, blasphemy is an obligation, criminal or not. 
The question is ridiculous.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/02/2009 12:58:36 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2009 : 13:15:04 [Permalink]
|
Lets see how to do this gently...
Fuck Abraham!
Judaism, check
Christianity, check
Islam, check |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
UN adopts binding measure to ban blasphemy!
