Comments on: More on hate speech and incitement

By: Payday Loans

Payday Loans — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:52:37 +0000

Great blog! Payday Loans http://www.payday-loan-today.com

By: Jake McGuire

Jake McGuire — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:07:21 +0000

Again, the State Department is only acting against foreign terrorist organizations. And they’re also talking about television airwaves, which are already regulated for content. In satellite, cable, and print, you can spread all the hatred you want.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:44:43 +0000

Well, here's the quote:

"It's not a question of freedom of speech," he [state department guy] said.

"It's a question of incitement to violence. And we don't see why here or anywhere else a terrorist organisation should be allowed to spread its hatred and incitement through the television airwaves."

If tomorrow they decide to designate David Duke as a terrorist or they feel that Church of Scientology is a terrorist organization, then it won't be a question of freedom of speech anymore, that's all there is to it. Different mechanisms, same effect.

By: Jake McGuire

Jake McGuire — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:21:40 +0000

Are you saying that a US citizen can open a TV station and broadcast exactly the same stuff without facing the same consequences? It seems odd, do you insist on this theory? Broadcast? Not over public airwaves, due to FCC regulations. But over cable or in print? Absolutely. See David Duke, KKK, Lyndon LaRouche, Church of Scientology, etc etc.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:48:35 +0000

I understand what you mean, but seriously now, I think it goes something like this: it’s against the law to give money to any entity that is known to be passing some of it to a ‘terrorist organization’. Yet a fact that a ‘terrorist organization’ gives money to an entity doesn’t make this entity ‘terrorist organization’, otherwise the Hezbollah would’ve been able to ‘contaminate’ any entity they want simply by writing a check, right? IIRC, Hezbollah’s political wing is not considered ‘terrorist’ by the EU, so… I know, these things aren’t necessarily logical, but still, there must be some basic common sense there, right?

By: Anna in Cairo

Anna in Cairo — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:19:55 +0000

But haven’t you been following this whole thing abb1? American Muslims who are donating to soup kitchens that are somehow tied to Hamas are having their savings impounded. It is already happening. Designating the soup kitchens as independent terrorist orgs is just overkill.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:14:12 +0000

Hmm, Anna, I dunno; the BBC says: “The station is backed by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah…”. So, if the Hezbollah operates (or finances) a hospital or a soup kitchen – does it make this hospital and soup kitchen terrorist organizations? This could be a dangerous game, you know; follow this a few steps further and you may run into a situation where the State Department will have to declare the US congress terrorist organization…

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:05:06 +0000

Interesting aspect of the Wash Post’s article :- “French authorities have expelled a dozen Islamic clerics for allegedly promoting hatred or religious extremism, including a Turkish-born imam who officials said denied that Muslims were involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States”. That’s really weird when you consider that book that sold squillions in France saying that 9/11 was an inside job. But the guy who wrote it was white, I guess.

By: Anna in Cairo

Anna in Cairo — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:44:48 +0000

The reason it is stupid to list Al Manar as a terrorist org is that Hizbollah is already listed as a terrorist org and this is THEIR Tv station. It’s already covered. Whether or not you agree that Hizbollah is properly categorized as a terrorist org is a whole nother issue.

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:04:33 +0000

Jake, al-Manar is not an American organization, nor are it’s employees American citizens I don’t see any reason to think that al-Manar was added to the list of terrorist organisations because it’s a foreign organization. Are you saying that a US citizen can open a TV station and broadcast exactly the same stuff without facing the same consequences? It seems odd, do you insist on this theory? Thanks.

By: nic

nic — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:39:57 +0000

Jake and stacey, I had no intention to turn this into yet another US vs. France debate. I’m just saying, aside from specific laws, the way speech is perceived as hateful and offensive depends also on a lot of factors, among which political interests, the level of power and popularity of the media where that speech can come from, the selectiveness in different reactions based on different speakers, etc. I think these factors play heavily into how effectively free speech is. There is no such thing as absolutely 100% “free” speech. But even where it’s legally more unrestricted than elsewhere, for some speakers, it can be still freer from consequences than for others.

By: Bucky

Bucky — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:21:55 +0000

Incitement to hatred alone means almost nothing, incitement to undeserved hatred would seem to be the agreed-upon wrong here. But then that’s all about proof beforehand isn’t it? Which means the more successful villains, with their cut-outs and fusible links, their politicians and media whores, will be protected even further by the urge of nice people to protect the innocent. It’s an incitement to hatred to say the US is killing women and children in Iraq for oil and empire – or it should be, it’s certainly a hateful thing. But it’s also true. Making it a crime to say the truth because it makes people hate the perpetrators of villainy is more like cowardice, disguised as reason and politesse. – Jake may be right that Americans still have the right to publicly claim absurd things and accuse specific groups for causing them, though I’ve never heard that particular one before, and I wonder where exactly you would be able to make that claim and still be protected by law from the hatred and retaliation with which it would be met. CNN? The NYTimes? Downtown Chicago? Besides the internet I mean. Gary Webb would disagree with Jake’s broad assertion of American freedom I think, but then he’s not here anymore. It’s nonsense, intentional or dim-witted, to claim the American public forum is an open mic now. As opposed to your right to say publicly that Iraq, and the Iraqi people, and by extension all Arabs, and by extension again all Muslims, should pay the price for 9/11 – which is an incitement to hatred that’s nearing anthemic resonance now. I don’t think that weirdly unchallenged animosity is a shining example of First Amendment protection in action.

By: Stacey

Stacey — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:19:47 +0000

You know, we do have (in the US) legislation limiting free speech – if it incites violence, against individuals or groups, it’s illegal hate speech. One has to meet the burden of proof, though, so this comes up most often after the violence has already happen. Our free speech rights, which are indeed more robust than many/most other countries, are nevertheless still limited in order to protect the rights (to speech, but more basically to freedom from violence) of others. One of the core principles of political Liberalism is the belief in the inalienability of rights only up to the point where their exercise limits the rights of others. Thus the debate over “group rights” and “individual rights” in the debate over multiculturalism.

By: Jake McGuire

Jake McGuire — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:58:50 +0000

You think the French don't expel people for associating with "terrorists"? Read this article for an idea as to what goes on there. Detention for years without trial, interrogation without access to laywers, the whole deal. What is comparatively unique is the protection the US gives it's citizens to say what they want, be it dangerous, unpopular, or just plain rude.

By: nic

nic — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:37:50 +0000

al-Manar is not an American organization, nor are it’s employees American citizens Exactly my point. They’re not Americans, so they cannot do what other organisations can – and no, I don’t think Bill O’Reilly is an exact equivalent at all here, but there are extremist groups and voices within the US who are fully protected by free speech. Whereas a, say, Muslim French professor coming to teach in the US can be denied his visa, without ever saying or doing or supporting anything close to what has been protected by free speech within the US. Al-Manar is not French, either. Yet, in French territory, it was subject to the same laws as everyone else in France. Maybe they deserve being put on the US terrorist list, for all I know. But it’s not such a small thing. It’s definitely worse than being tried and fined for hateful speech or even only kicked off a satellite.