Stuff like this is why I keep standing up for free speech, even if I find what the other person is saying to be reprehensible.
Breaching the wall of freedom of speech will almost invariably lead to these kinds of prosecutions over time - people will eventually use speech laws to regulate political opponents even.
People forget the ACLU fought for the KKK for decades. I may not like what you say, but as an american, I will fight and die for your right to say it. This is the freedom that made the USA the melting pot and economic powerhouse it is today.
I'd be surprised if the ACLU continues down that path in the coming years. They're having a difficult time remaining neutral in the way they used to be.
The ACLU specifically fought for the right of KKK members to espouse racist beliefs and to assemble as a group. They did not defend the KKK's practice of lynching black and Jewish men.
I will fight for you to say something offensive but not for you to say something that puts others at risk. This is where the ACLU's support of the KKK and Nazi groups to say dangerous (not just offensive) things becomes a risk to the melting pot or salad bowl and to the economic powerhouse.
This is how we end up in a world where people think nothing of putting up Confederate monuments (for comparison, try putting up Nazi monuments in Europe on public land and see how far you get) and implementing policies like repatriation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Lets not be too smug. Plenty of Americans who speak out on any type of political issue receive death threats. Sure it's not from the state but does that make a difference if you have to live in fear?
Here is one example, but you've probably seen this lots of times.
>Sure it's not from the state but does that make a difference if you have to live in fear?
It makes a massive difference!
If some random person tries to kill you and you blow their brains out in self defense the court will almost certainly back you up (assuming it's legitimate self defense). If random person someone tries to kill you and the police happen to be nearby they will probably intervene.
In contrast, if the state comes after you you're screwed. If you defend yourself you're even more screwed. You can't even call the cops.
The effect is the same: keep your mouth shut. It's not worth going to prison and it's not worth getting shot.
I was just trying to point out how people don't really support freedom of speech when it comes to something that makes them angry - which is often the important stuff to be talking about.
It makes a huge difference. Living in fear is still better then living in a jail cell. You sound like the judge from the article,
> The top court judge said jail was the safest place for him if he feared for his life, a remark which rights group Amnesty International found "deeply worrying".
Well not to worry. There are plenty of Americans that openly advocate to make offensive speech illegal. THEN it will be time to live in fear of the state because a cartoon could have resulted in some prison time.
India, like most other Commonwealth countries, does not have the American First Amendment tradition, and their free speech laws are more restrictive.
Defamation, for example, and discussions of religion, are especially dangerous grounds since what would be protected speech in the US (and generally non-controversial) is not protected in India and could even lead to riots, lynching, etc.
I get the impression that you are asking that not because you don't know the answer, but because this is a politically motivated topic for you and you don't like the implication.
No, I really don't know the answer to why someone is bringing up a point of Constitutional law in a case governed by an entirely different set of laws. Commonwealth countries like India have very different definitions of free speech rights than the US, and India has some of the most restrictive free speech laws of the former British colonies.
To be more blunt: in India, people can and have been imprisoned for saying negative things about other religions, and those punishments were upheld by the courts.
In America, people might get jailed at the local level in certain parts of the country by an overzealous sheriff if they badmouth Christianity. And then they get released within a few hours, or a few days tops. And then they sue and receive a settlement in the millions of dollars to compensate them for the violation of their civil rights.
I was using this particular case as an example of why those of us in the U.S should be grateful for the First Amendment.
You understood that from the beginning but it rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. Let me guess, you think that offensive speech shouldn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment? That would be a real shocker.
That's mad. People who commit ABH, hit-and-runs, deal class A drugs and such don't always get taken in to custody -- we regularly have reports (in our local news) of people convicted who commit further crimes because they're out on warrant/bail or only got a warning/fine -- making a bad joke that doesn't physically harm anyone isn't an offense that should lead to imprisonment. You tell them how insensitive it is, then you ignore them and leave them to wallow in their own excrement.
>A spokesperson for the campaign group Justice4Grenfell said the video had “caused great alarm and distress” //
Why did they watch it? They could probably say the same about Towering Inferno, or an episode of Game of Thrones or myriad other things. It's all getting ridiculous.
>Why did they watch it? They could probably say the same about Towering Inferno, or an episode of Game of Thrones or myriad other things. It's all getting ridiculous.
...really?????
It was all over the news. We have the BBC on one screen at work constantly. I saw the footage a few times the day after it happened completely inadvertendly. Not to mention it being all over social media and pretty much unavoidable.
It's a response to the BBC or anyone else rebroadcasting it too. I still haven't seen it, maybe a screenshot, big deal, its pixels on a screen. Seeing pixels on a screen should not cause great distress other than the real distress that exists. If someone finds the knowledge that some racists did a racist thing (that didn't actually harm anyone) extremely distressful, that person should take extra care to avoid such information then, they are abnormally sensitive. That is fine and understandable for an individual.
I didn't see it until this comment thread. The BBC/your Facebook friends are the problem there, if it's offensive why would you play it or popularise it.
Presumably you'd like BBC management and your social media contacts to also be imprisoned? Isn't it inconsistent not to.
If just seeing this is an offense worthy of imprisonment then those on social media, and the BBC cause far more offense.
This is the world that the religious right wanted (but in their favor) in the 80's, that we all stood up to and rejected. How did we end up back here again?
This question has vexed me all the while I have watched it unfold.
The first inkling I had that something was off, was a magazine article talking about rising religiosity in middle eastern countries.
That’s the first time the movie, where humanity pushed back religion and superstition, had tracking issues.
we saw that increasing wealth meant even bigger displays of religious dedication.
It turns out that a large part of the world has not had reason to go through their version of the enlightenment.
But while they were gaining the ability to improve GDP, the west was busy applying science to marketing, and business acumen to news reporting.
Effectively - we (humanity) used the tools of the enlightenment (science) to improve marketing, and apply it to religion. We targeted weaknesses in human thinking, and ruthlessly built bubbles of voters who didn’t need to fully understand the world to succeed.
And thank god for that. Before western religion came to the forefront, the idea of individual worth wasn’t really a thing and 99.9% of the world were either some sort of slave or slavemaster.
Didnt downvote you, but Christianity has constant themes of slaves and masters, being a slave to christ, and historically the cultures which adopted christianity have continued to have slaves (pre and post adoption.)
Sooo, maybe? But I dont know if that point is well made.
It obviously wasn't a fast transition, but Christianity brought around the concept of absolute religious equality. A novel idea to the world, and likely the catalyst that changed thousands of years of slavery.
I know it isn't in fashion to credit Christianity with anything, but what other philosophy of the era could have eventually ended slavery, given slavery is likely the state of man ever since Grog the caveman threatened his brother-son with a beating if he didn't fetch more water.
People in power love to censor. When the religious right had the power, they tried hard to censor what they didn't like. Now it's the left that is in power and they are trying to censor what they don't like.
The fight for free speech is a neverending one because one side will always be in power. It's why the founders made it an inalienable right, not given to us by the government, but by "the creator".
Free speech isn't a privilege provided to us by the government. It is something we are born with.
I’m guessing there’s only one country where you’re legally permitted to offend every single group, no matter what. If there’s another I’ve never heard of it.
Truly troubling. I feel like the only person on Earth right now that knows what free speech even is and is actively trying to engage in its protection is Jordan Peterson. And sadly, he is no activist, but just a psychologist that doesn't really want to be involved in the controversy. But nobody else seems to be joining him.
I find it hard to believe there were days where you could be killed if you did not acknowledge supreme authority of a Catholic pope or some other monarch figure. People refused to do that on the bounds that God only is supreme. They could have "lied" and kept their life. But they choose to be jailed and beheaded for their belief. And right now in America, we have half of the population that sits somewhere on the "right wing" spectrum that refuses to speak on the grounds that what they say might go against an ideology on the left. I wonder how this will turn out. When will men become men again? I feel like I should lead the way, but I'd rather sit here in front of a computer...
Wow. That case is really concerning. She was basically prosecuted for applying modern label to past events: calling a muslim figure marrying 9yo a pedophile.
For those who don't read the article, here is the amusing part:
"Ironically, earlier this year, Mr Iyer-Mitra tweeted that a criminal case should be filed against American historian Audrey Truschke for allegedly abusing a Hindu god and "hurting sentiments".
"Bog her down in the legal system - can't leave on bail," he wrote. He has also tweeted about putting human rights activists and Communists in prison. One of his friends told me that most of his tweets were written in jest and "he now possibly regrets posting some of them".
When you call for jailing people based on opinions, well you never know when your opinion is the one out of favor with those with power.
The same thing happens in Sweden where an artist named Dan Park has been sentenced to 3 months in prison [1, Swedish] for breaking the 'hets mot folkgrupp' (incitement against a specific group) law. This is not the first time he was sentenced to prison for his work, in 2014 he got 6 months for another piece. The mentioned law is controversial in that it criminalises speech or other forms of expression which is subjectively deemed to be offensive against groups without specifying what it takes to actually violate the law which makes it open to wide interpretation. Dan Park is critical of the Swedish migration policies and uses controversial imagery to attract attention to what he considers to be important issues. This used to be possible without running the risk of imprisonment until an amendment to the law was passed in 1982 [3].
This is the law text used [2]:
"Den som i uttalande eller i annat meddelande som sprids hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för folkgrupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse eller sexuell läggning, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år eller om brottet är ringa, till böter.
Är brottet grovt döms till fängelse i lägst sex månader och högst fyra år. Vid bedömande av om brottet är grovt skall särskilt beaktas om meddelandet haft ett särskilt hotfullt eller kränkande innehåll och spritts till ett stort antal personer på ett sätt som varit ägnat att väcka betydande uppmärksamhet."
This translates to:
"Anyone who in speech or any other form of expression threatens or expresses contempt for a group of persons identified by race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, creed or sexual orientation is sentenced for incitement against a group to prison for up to two years or if the crime is of a lesser degree, to a fine.
For serious crimes the sentence is imprisonment for at least six months and no more than four years. In assessing whether the offence is serious, particular attention should be paid to whether the message had a particularly threatening or infringing content and was spread to a large number of persons in a manner that was designed attract significant attention."
48 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 206 ms ] threadBreaching the wall of freedom of speech will almost invariably lead to these kinds of prosecutions over time - people will eventually use speech laws to regulate political opponents even.
This is how we end up in a world where people think nothing of putting up Confederate monuments (for comparison, try putting up Nazi monuments in Europe on public land and see how far you get) and implementing policies like repatriation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
Ahhhhhh goes down smooth every time.
Here is one example, but you've probably seen this lots of times.
https://www.wmay.com/2018/10/02/cartoonist-says-hes-getting-...
The irony is the type of people doing this are probably also the types with bumper stickers praising the constitution.
It makes a massive difference!
If some random person tries to kill you and you blow their brains out in self defense the court will almost certainly back you up (assuming it's legitimate self defense). If random person someone tries to kill you and the police happen to be nearby they will probably intervene.
In contrast, if the state comes after you you're screwed. If you defend yourself you're even more screwed. You can't even call the cops.
I was just trying to point out how people don't really support freedom of speech when it comes to something that makes them angry - which is often the important stuff to be talking about.
> The top court judge said jail was the safest place for him if he feared for his life, a remark which rights group Amnesty International found "deeply worrying".
Defamation, for example, and discussions of religion, are especially dangerous grounds since what would be protected speech in the US (and generally non-controversial) is not protected in India and could even lead to riots, lynching, etc.
To be more blunt: in India, people can and have been imprisoned for saying negative things about other religions, and those punishments were upheld by the courts.
In America, people might get jailed at the local level in certain parts of the country by an overzealous sheriff if they badmouth Christianity. And then they get released within a few hours, or a few days tops. And then they sue and receive a settlement in the millions of dollars to compensate them for the violation of their civil rights.
So really, not at all similar.
You understood that from the beginning but it rubbed you the wrong way for some reason. Let me guess, you think that offensive speech shouldn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment? That would be a real shocker.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/pug-nazi-salute-...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/05/police-appea...
That's mad. People who commit ABH, hit-and-runs, deal class A drugs and such don't always get taken in to custody -- we regularly have reports (in our local news) of people convicted who commit further crimes because they're out on warrant/bail or only got a warning/fine -- making a bad joke that doesn't physically harm anyone isn't an offense that should lead to imprisonment. You tell them how insensitive it is, then you ignore them and leave them to wallow in their own excrement.
>A spokesperson for the campaign group Justice4Grenfell said the video had “caused great alarm and distress” //
Why did they watch it? They could probably say the same about Towering Inferno, or an episode of Game of Thrones or myriad other things. It's all getting ridiculous.
...really?????
It was all over the news. We have the BBC on one screen at work constantly. I saw the footage a few times the day after it happened completely inadvertendly. Not to mention it being all over social media and pretty much unavoidable.
"Just don't watch it" is an idiotic response.
For everyone else, get over it.
Presumably you'd like BBC management and your social media contacts to also be imprisoned? Isn't it inconsistent not to.
If just seeing this is an offense worthy of imprisonment then those on social media, and the BBC cause far more offense.
The first inkling I had that something was off, was a magazine article talking about rising religiosity in middle eastern countries.
That’s the first time the movie, where humanity pushed back religion and superstition, had tracking issues.
we saw that increasing wealth meant even bigger displays of religious dedication.
It turns out that a large part of the world has not had reason to go through their version of the enlightenment.
But while they were gaining the ability to improve GDP, the west was busy applying science to marketing, and business acumen to news reporting.
Effectively - we (humanity) used the tools of the enlightenment (science) to improve marketing, and apply it to religion. We targeted weaknesses in human thinking, and ruthlessly built bubbles of voters who didn’t need to fully understand the world to succeed.
My conclusion is that we were naive.
The evangelicals are alive and well.
Sooo, maybe? But I dont know if that point is well made.
I know it isn't in fashion to credit Christianity with anything, but what other philosophy of the era could have eventually ended slavery, given slavery is likely the state of man ever since Grog the caveman threatened his brother-son with a beating if he didn't fetch more water.
Hinduism, Christianity - all of them have the same pattern of behavior.
The religion part was just a handy excuse.
The fight for free speech is a neverending one because one side will always be in power. It's why the founders made it an inalienable right, not given to us by the government, but by "the creator".
Free speech isn't a privilege provided to us by the government. It is something we are born with.
Not true in America, certainly.
I find it hard to believe there were days where you could be killed if you did not acknowledge supreme authority of a Catholic pope or some other monarch figure. People refused to do that on the bounds that God only is supreme. They could have "lied" and kept their life. But they choose to be jailed and beheaded for their belief. And right now in America, we have half of the population that sits somewhere on the "right wing" spectrum that refuses to speak on the grounds that what they say might go against an ideology on the left. I wonder how this will turn out. When will men become men again? I feel like I should lead the way, but I'd rather sit here in front of a computer...
"Ironically, earlier this year, Mr Iyer-Mitra tweeted that a criminal case should be filed against American historian Audrey Truschke for allegedly abusing a Hindu god and "hurting sentiments".
"Bog her down in the legal system - can't leave on bail," he wrote. He has also tweeted about putting human rights activists and Communists in prison. One of his friends told me that most of his tweets were written in jest and "he now possibly regrets posting some of them".
When you call for jailing people based on opinions, well you never know when your opinion is the one out of favor with those with power.
This is the law text used [2]:
"Den som i uttalande eller i annat meddelande som sprids hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för folkgrupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse eller sexuell läggning, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år eller om brottet är ringa, till böter.
Är brottet grovt döms till fängelse i lägst sex månader och högst fyra år. Vid bedömande av om brottet är grovt skall särskilt beaktas om meddelandet haft ett särskilt hotfullt eller kränkande innehåll och spritts till ett stort antal personer på ett sätt som varit ägnat att väcka betydande uppmärksamhet."
This translates to:
"Anyone who in speech or any other form of expression threatens or expresses contempt for a group of persons identified by race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, creed or sexual orientation is sentenced for incitement against a group to prison for up to two years or if the crime is of a lesser degree, to a fine.
For serious crimes the sentence is imprisonment for at least six months and no more than four years. In assessing whether the offence is serious, particular attention should be paid to whether the message had a particularly threatening or infringing content and was spread to a large number of persons in a manner that was designed attract significant attention."
[1] https://nyheteridag.se/dan-park-efter-fangelsedomen-vansinne...
[2] https://lagen.nu/1962:700#K16P8S1
[3] https://lagen.nu/prop/1981/82:58#B2