Is Free Speech in Europe confused?

I, Brian · 02-24-2006, 06:09 PM

On the one hand, publishing cartoons demonising a religion are regarded as Free Speech...

...but mention of secular history towards another religion in unapproved ways and it's jail or suspension from public office.

Seems that Europe doesn't really know what Free Speech is, and is sending very confused messages.

While there's a tradition within Europe to satirise all public institutions - including religious ones - the Danish cartoons portrayed Islam's central religious figure as a terrorist. Not exactly good taste or little other than inflammatory.

But disagree with religious-secular history, or refer to it in the wrong way, and your opinion results in strict punishments.

How badly wrong has Europe got its priorities on Free Speech issues?

Faithfulservant · 02-24-2006, 06:54 PM

I heard this story on the news and it disturbed me.. I almost wondered if the media exaggerated it to make it news worthy.

Faustus · 02-25-2006, 06:16 AM

I do think that it's been exaggerated as the story made the rounds- I was hearing from people that this guy got ten years, when in fact he got three. Not that I feel it's acceptable to jail someone for three years based on the denial of the Holocaust. While I agree with those in the article that said Holocaust denial is really anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate (and I think Irving himself acknowledged this by initiating that libel suit against the woman who called him a Holocaust denier, despite the fact that that's just what he is, and he's now admitting it), I don't think that jailing people and such for it is an effective way to address the issue. It just lends more credence to the neo-Nazi claims of things like worldwide Jewish conspiracies to prevent people from speaking out, blah, blah. Now personally, I think people who deny the Holocaust are ignorant and almost always anti-Semitic, but they're entitled to hold that opinion just as I'm allowed to think they're morons. Freedom of speech. Unless this man was doing something to incite violence against Jews or in other ways endangering people (the whole "Fire!" in a crowded theater thing), I don't think jailing is appropriate. Though I do notice that he was certainly backpeddaling pretty fast when it came to either standing up for his views or taking his knocks on this. It strikes me as the behavior of someone who knew quite well that he was peddling anti-Semitic crap that had little basis in reality, and that he's quite willing to abdandon all of it now that it's getting him in trouble is rather telling about his character. Of course, the fact that he's an intellectual wimp and an anti-Semite isn't, again, sufficient reason to try and have the man jailed. The guy seems like quite a piece of work, but part of freedom of speech is that people are allowed to express their opinions even when they're ridiculous, unsubstantiated, ignorant or hateful. You have to take the good with the bad. I will point out, though, that we don't see any reports of Jewish people rioting in the streets or trying to burn down Irving's offices in response to his writings.

Faustus · 02-25-2006, 06:30 AM

From Wikipedia, this seems to be the crux of the issue:

Quote:

Irving was arrested by the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria on 11 November 2005, under a warrant issued in 1989. Irving knew that he was banned from Austria, in the words of his partner, Bente Hogh: "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone. He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."[9]

If that's the case, then I'm inclined to stand by the Austrians' ruling- if he's being tried and jailed on charges related to illegally entering the country (knowingly at that), then sorry, but he made that bed, and now he can lie in it. If the charges are related to Holocaust denial (that is, he's being convicted under Holocaust denial laws, not immigration-type laws), then I think this does more harm than good.

Jack Halyard · 05-09-2006, 09:08 PM

From what I've read about the charges, David Irving was sentenced to three years for denying the holocaust. IMHO, the only thing the man is guilty of incredible stupidity.

Tao_Equus · 05-14-2006, 02:56 PM

Hi Brian,

Quote:

While there's a tradition within Europe to satirise all public institutions - including religious ones - the Danish cartoons portrayed Islam's central religious figure as a terrorist. Not exactly good taste or little other than inflammatory.

Do you object to the cartoons on the intro of 'have i got news for you'? they satarise all sides. You are correct that europe has a long tradition of satire through cartoons, and it is a sign of health in free speech that this continues.

Is it wrong to claim an Islamic leader is a terrorist? No, many give thier support to terrorism. My own opinion is that we pay far too much service to political correctness and that very few Islamic sources are so polite about the west.

As for Holocaust denial...I support what you say Faustus. Jailing a man for this is counter-productive and only serves to to give self-justification to the idiots that are ready to believe in conspiracy theories etc.
"lest we forget", well perhaps its time we did just that.

regards

David

cyberpi · 05-26-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Seems that Europe doesn't really know what Free Speech is, and is sending very confused messages.

Yes I notice this. It is a favored tool of both individuals and nations in history to control speech both by propaganda and by censorship. Conflicts are strongly associated with the dividing lines of communication, which all starts with those individuals or groups who ban others whom they deem to be uncivil.

Naturally it is a serious problem in the USA. Rather than encourage individuals to communicate and interact even more with those who oppose them, today the government leads by example by practicing RENDITION, or even a police WAR on DRUGS... so the 'Jewish problem' of the last century has been replaced by a 'Terrorist problem', a 'Muslim problem', a 'Drug problem', a 'Sex offender problem', a 'Segregation problem', etc... It is not that the problems do not exist, but that the government's solution or the public's solution is often the exact opposite of what would actually solve the problem. The problem is stoked and encouraged.

Today as I sit in the USA my eye is evil because it only sees what I or my neighbor deems is civil. How shall I deal with my evil eye?

Tao_Equus · 05-26-2007, 09:08 PM

I think increasingly we do have free speech. The supression of, in the UK, the Thatcher years has gone and the powers that be are much more willing to stand back and let people like myself rant. Why? Because the masses are an apathetic bunch of self-serving dont cares. They happy to settle for middle class mediocrity and the suffering of likes of the people of Darfur are just daily news content and meaningless to their lives. They donate their bit to charity, say the right words, and turn up dutifully to vote in the next puppet of corporate greed. so free speech is not confused....its meaningless and irrelevant to the masses.

madeinrussia89 · 11-29-2007, 09:55 PM

By pushing this behavior (denying the Holocaust) under the carpet, they are giving it more power than it would have if out in the open and talked about. It becomes more attractive if forbidden.

Somehow it is okay for Europeans to discriminate against Muslims with hijab bans and cartoons insulting their religious figures, but not to say a thing against Jews or the Holocaust or their whole world falls apart.

wil · 11-29-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

By pushing this behavior (denying the Holocaust) under the carpet, they are giving it more power than it would have if out in the open and talked about. It becomes more attractive if forbidden.

Somehow it is okay for Europeans to discriminate against Muslims with hijab bans and cartoons insulting their religious figures, but not to say a thing against Jews or the Holocaust or their whole world falls apart.

That was exactly the argument at this guys trial, that this is not worthy of jailing but it would be better to simply discredit him in public rather than turn him into a cult hero. Turns out he is still banned from Austria and deported to England but he was out 21 Dec 2006 for time served.

It appears it doesn't matter what religion it is something always gets someone up in arms. Most bans against hajibs don't go far, and the cartoon thing was decried publicly once it was exposed the reason for the uproar. And of course the Christians weren't quiet when the stewardess couldn't wear her crucifix. We all have our moments and our cross to bear.

madeinrussia89 · 11-29-2007, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

That was exactly the argument at this guys trial, that this is not worthy of jailing but it would be better to simply discredit him in public rather than turn him into a cult hero. Turns out he is still banned from Austria and deported to England but he was out 21 Dec 2006 for time served.

It appears it doesn't matter what religion it is something always gets someone up in arms. Most bans against hajibs don't go far, and the cartoon thing was decried publicly once it was exposed the reason for the uproar. And of course the Christians weren't quiet when the stewardess couldn't wear her crucifix. We all have our moments and our cross to bear.

Right when I think society is going to make a step forward, someone hits the rewind button and we're all stuck with the same **** again.

Most bans don't go far? As far as I know the French one hasn't been overturned, and Germany is even looking toward installing one.

I, Brian · 11-30-2007, 09:26 AM

Could of sworn I read a story recently - think it was Spain - where someone faced jail for "insulting the King". Can't find the story at present, but did seem rather shocking for a modern secular Europe.

wil · 11-30-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Most bans don't go far? As far as I know the French one hasn't been overturned, and Germany is even looking toward installing one.

I can understand a society which wishes to have drivers licenses and facial recognition as the simplest form of identification. As I understand it the problem is with limiting that. Am I wrong?

Caimanson · 12-02-2007, 01:27 AM

Isn't the whole thing more about politics than free speech?
Perhaps the Germans and the Austrians are still oversensitive about the holocaust, so they act tough to show that they have nothing to do with anti-semitism.
The stigma of the ugly past.

madeinrussia89 · 12-02-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

I can understand a society which wishes to have drivers licenses and facial recognition as the simplest form of identification. As I understand it the problem is with limiting that. Am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong. It's just that these societies could do things other than ban hijab altogether. It would be okay for them to get picture IDs without hijab if women were the only ones who looked at their pictures. Problem solved.