How Far should Freedom of Expression go?

[Koga No Goshi]

Trying to goad a Texan to violence?

Threatening a Texan's liquor/beer?

Koga, my lad, they're not going to find enough of you to do a proper DNA test.



Actually, in Texas, you being in his fridge without his permission would be enough. Strike would be processed, but the local DA wouldn't even bother bringing in to the Grand Jury.

I know that touching another man's BBQ grill is a capitol offense, for sure.

[Koga No Goshi]

How fast can you run? How heavily are you armed?

I'm wearing a tiedye shirt, I have one leg in a cast and no weapon.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

In my opinion physical harm and property damage are definitely way way beyond the line, to make that clear. Inciting either of those things also.

However it is difficult to say how far a restriction on that or inciting hatred would go.

Last night for example, I was playing indoor soccer. My team is made up of 3 Englishmen, including myself, an Irishman, a Scotsman, and an Australian of Dutch heritage. All of us love it in this country. We were playing a bunch of Australians who were wearing Socceroo's shirts. We wiped the floor with them needless to say, Australians are, as a rule, awful at Football. But my point is that my young Geordie friend was subjected to what some would call abuse. In return when he scored a goal he called the guy a 'fat Australian '

This was all in the spirit of the game and afterwards we all shook hands and got on with our lives. But even in everyday situations there are a lot of things that would be 'unacceptable' if inciting hatred was illegal.

[Kadagar_AV]

Too much censorship on these boards.

[LittleGrizzly]

Freedom of expression should have no boundaries, IMHO.

Do you mean no laws against incitement to hatred also ??

I could probably support people being left alone to fly whatever flag they want outside thier house, but what about a guy telling a large crowd about the evil that is black people and getting them whipped up into a frenzy where they go out and target black people

IMO theres no such thing as pure free speech but there should be very few basic limitations on it....

[Kadagar_AV]

Too much censorship on these boards.

[Fragony]

Just a stupid flag. I draw the line at calling for violence.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Stupid flags indeed, but they are also symbols with power and meaning.

Freedom of expression is important, but a wise society understand the nature of symbols and the impact they can have on people's lives and interaction. Time also plays a part in this.

For example, I consider the Confederate flag to be an obscenity, the symbol of a deeply evil philosophy happily consigned to the cesspit of history. Personally, I find that the flying of such a flag is a direct insult to African Americans and indeed, the many brave men who died to wipe out the stain of slavery from the record of one of the noblest countries of the world.

But the Civil War was nearly a hundred and fifty years ago, and no-one left alive of that generation. The symbol has morphed into a mild shadow of rebelliousness, of difference, of myth and romance. It no longer reflects slavery except in the minds of a few deluded souls. Thus, my historical anger and sense of personal affront has no place in changing the views of others.

However, had some one raised the green crescent to flutter over the smoking ruins of the Twin Towers, with the legend "Mission Accomplished" written neatly in Arabic on its cloth, I suspect we would have found it difficult to find anyone defending the perpetrators' "right" to free expression -and rightly so.

Somewhere in between the two then, it becomes acceptable for symbols to mutate and become anodyne - to relinquish the chains of their history.

I submit that the Nazi flag has not done this - it retains its evil symbolism, and is routinely used for that symbolism to perpetuate hurt and a celebrate a message of unspoken violence. There are people alive whose families went to their deaths under that flag, and whose menfolk died to liberate us from that wickedness. That flag symbolises everything that the United States abhors, everything that the Stars and Stripes rejects - and her wielders have bled to protect the world from it and its symbolism.

It has no place being flown in that country, to insult the memory and the living. Maybe in a thousand years that evil, jagged thing will mean nothing more than a footnote to history - but not now. Not now.

[Kadagar_AV]

Too much censorship on these boards.

[Kralizec]

I submit that the Nazi flag has not done this - it retains its evil symbolism, and is routinely used for that symbolism to perpetuate hurt and a celebrate a message of unspoken violence. There are people alive whose families went to their deaths under that flag, and whose menfolk died to liberate us from that wickedness. That flag symbolises everything that the United States abhors, everything that the Stars and Stripes rejects - and her wielders have bled to protect the world from it and its symbolism.

It has no place being flown in that country, to insult the memory and the living. Maybe in a thousand years that evil, jagged thing will mean nothing more than a footnote to history - but not now. Not now.

The reaction wouldn't have been so mild if this guy had lived Tel Aviv. Likewise, wearing a shirt with the hammer and sickle would produce an occasional frown in western Europe, but I wouldn't try it in most eastern European countries even if it's legal in most of them.

Wilders argued last year that it should be prohibited to freely distrubute the Qu'ran and one of his arguments was that Mein Kampf, too, was prohibited. I think that comparing the two books is hyperbolic and unfair, but it does show that banning one book or one symbol is going to raise this sort of questions. Wich is why we shouldn't bother trying to make exceptions to free expression on these grounds.

[Fragony]

I submit that the Nazi flag has not done this - it retains its evil symbolism, and is routinely used for that symbolism to perpetuate hurt and a celebrate a message of unspoken violence. There are people alive whose families went to their deaths under that flag, and whose menfolk died to liberate us from that wickedness. That flag symbolises everything that the United States abhors, everything that the Stars and Stripes rejects - and her wielders have bled to protect the world from it and its symbolism.

In the end it symbolises a failed stateform, it's perfectly possible to see the philosophy apart from the crimes, hand over your Che Guavera shirts please, and these hammer&sickles, no christian symbols please, no islamic, no jewish, someone might be offended. Heck I want all flags banned. And really what kind of force are the nazi's today. Bald guys with funny boots waving flags if you want to be offended by something that pathetic. Neo nazi's hatebeards biojugend just laugh them off.

[Kadagar_AV]

Too much censorship on these boards.

[Kralizec]

There isn't a list of banned books in the Netherlands. The Dutch state has the exclusive legal rights to publish copies of Mein Kampf, and they don't excercise it (I believe a fairly large amount of pre-WW2 copies are still in circulation, though). In a few years it will expire; but it would still probably be covered by an article of law against publishing materials for the purpose of inciting hatred. A historical analysis would probably cause no problems, though.

It goes without saying that it's all kind of useless when you've got the internet

[HoreTore]

Threats to a person or number of persons = jailtime. That's spreading fear and terrorizing other people, and I can't see how that can be legal.

Anything else is fine by me though.

Except whining about "the liberal media not giving me any airtime" should be rewarded with a neckshot. Bugger off and start your own newspaper if noone wants to talk to you, it's a free country you dolt.

[Yoyoma1910]

All flags are stupid.


People should make their own. Like the Fante Asafo Flags!

[Fragony]

It is a sad, sad day for humanity when books gets forbidden:(

Will never happen, Wilders is just a clever politician that knows how to cast a stone. The reaction is always hilarious because they have to justify their duality and suddenly have to become experts, but I wouldn't look any further then that. Netherlands is is a strange country with some things.

[Kadagar_AV]

Too much censorship on these boards.

[TinCow]

The interesting part of this is the case of whether you know that the words could cause a violent reaction, but are not intended to cause one. For example, if you told Mary Daly that you believe that traditional gender roles are best (not saying that I necessarily believe that, that's a debate for another time), she would probably have quite the violent reaction (not that she'd listen to you in the first place since you're a man, but let's presume for a moment that she would). Are you justified in saying this, knowing it would provoke a reaction? If so, where do we draw the line?

On a legal level, it's called the reasonable person standard. Nearly all US (and probably all UK common law derivative) jurisdictions use this standard in tort, contract, and criminal law. The term comes from a determination as to what the "reasonable" would do under the circumstances. In layman's terms, it's the average person. The court determines whether the person acted in a manner consistent with what the average person would have done.

In this type of situation, the RPS would essentially ask whether a reasonable (average) person would have reacted violently to those comments. If they would have, then the person saying the comments would likely be found to have incited the violence, even if they honestly did not know it would happen. Their ignorance would not be a defense. If a reasonable (average) person would not have reacted violently to these comments, then the person making them would not be found to have incited violence, even if it did occur.

Of course, this is part of state law, and thus it's impossible to state a general rule. Some states will have exceptions that say that even if a reasonable person would not have reacted violently, actual knowledge that this specific person would react violently would be enough. So, if you told someone the sky was blue and that made them punch you, you may still be liable if you knew for a fact that they would punch you if you said that.

However, all this is merely hypothetical, because the vast majority of states do not allow for escalation to physical violence from verbal exchanges, regardless of what is being said. Without knowing a specific state to reference, the odds are that no matter what is said, and no matter how malicious the intent of the words, any violent response will be a criminal act.

[Koga No Goshi]

Stupid flags indeed, but they are also symbols with power and meaning.

Freedom of expression is important, but a wise society understand the nature of symbols and the impact they can have on people's lives and interaction. Time also plays a part in this.

For example, I consider the Confederate flag to be an obscenity, the symbol of a deeply evil philosophy happily consigned to the cesspit of history. Personally, I find that the flying of such a flag is a direct insult to African Americans and indeed, the many brave men who died to wipe out the stain of slavery from the record of one of the noblest countries of the world.

But the Civil War was nearly a hundred and fifty years ago, and no-one left alive of that generation. The symbol has morphed into a mild shadow of rebelliousness, of difference, of myth and romance. It no longer reflects slavery except in the minds of a few deluded souls. Thus, my historical anger and sense of personal affront has no place in changing the views of others.

However, had some one raised the green crescent to flutter over the smoking ruins of the Twin Towers, with the legend "Mission Accomplished" written neatly in Arabic on its cloth, I suspect we would have found it difficult to find anyone defending the perpetrators' "right" to free expression -and rightly so.

Somewhere in between the two then, it becomes acceptable for symbols to mutate and become anodyne - to relinquish the chains of their history.

I submit that the Nazi flag has not done this - it retains its evil symbolism, and is routinely used for that symbolism to perpetuate hurt and a celebrate a message of unspoken violence. There are people alive whose families went to their deaths under that flag, and whose menfolk died to liberate us from that wickedness. That flag symbolises everything that the United States abhors, everything that the Stars and Stripes rejects - and her wielders have bled to protect the world from it and its symbolism.

It has no place being flown in that country, to insult the memory and the living. Maybe in a thousand years that evil, jagged thing will mean nothing more than a footnote to history - but not now. Not now.

Great post, Banguo.

I think white guys 2 or 3 generations removed from the last major western holocaust who perhaps don't have a direct family connection to it anyway fail to see "the big deal."

Do you have a history in your family of institutionalized genocide practiced against your ethnic group? Or institutionalized slavery?

If you don't, or you have to go back to the Middle Ages to talk about it, you don't know what it's like to walk under a flag that stood for the organized, legally-sanctioned eradication of your people. And you would not so lightly say something like "it's just a flag, get over it."

[Rhyfelwyr]

Freedom of expression needs to be limited. This reminds me of studying Skokie - if you want to fly your Nazi flags then do not target people you know you will offend. Why can't we just have common sense in governments, the whole "we should be able to say anything we like anywhere we like" line is just brainless ideology. The people who say they support total freedom of expression tend to be the ones who dismiss communism as a mindless and impractical ideology - although clearly so is total freedom of expression.

[Koga No Goshi]

Freedom of expression needs to be limited. This reminds me of studying Skokie - if you want to fly your Nazi flags then do not target people you know you will offend. Why can't we just have common sense in governments, the whole "we should be able to say anything we like anywhere we like" line is just brainless ideology. The people who say they support total freedom of expression tend to be the ones who dismiss communism as a mindless and impractical ideology - although clearly so is total freedom of expression.

Agreed, I do not see why someone is having their rights infringed to not be able to publicly fly a flag that says to everyone who sees it "I support the eradication of a human group." Put it up on your wall inside or something.

[Kralizec]

.....

I'd like to compliment Banquo on his ability to get a point across without sounding like a self-righteous snob

[TinCow]

Agreed, I do not see why someone is having their rights infringed to not be able to publicly fly a flag that says to everyone who sees it "I support the eradication of a human group." Put it up on your wall inside or something.

Ah, but this distinction requires you to decide first which speech is improper. By its very nature, such a decision suppresses minority opinions and opens the door for abuse. Many of the basic values we hold dear today were minority opinions at some point in history. Simply because they are less popular and considered vile by others does not make them inherently wrong or improper.

The only acceptable restriction on speech is where that speech is intentionally trying to incite violence or is otherwise posing a serious risk of imminent bodily harm (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Everything beyond that simply must be allowed, because it is not possible to make an objective determination of which speech is proper and which is improper.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If my neighbour flew a Naziflag I would support him if anyone tried to force him to take it down.

I would not, however, borrow him a cup of sugar or my lawnmover. And I would probably fly a Rainbow flag just to piss him off...

Agreed. My neighbour may well fly a Nazi flag, and I wouldn't want anyone to have a legal basis to tell him to take it down. However, I'm going to fly the Star of David in my front yard and play Hatikvah as loud as I can.

[Koga No Goshi]

Ah, but this distinction requires you to decide first which speech is improper. By its very nature, such a decision suppresses minority opinions and opens the door for abuse. Many of the basic values we hold dear today were minority opinions at some point in history. Simply because they are less popular and considered vile by others does not make them inherently wrong or improper.

The only acceptable restriction on speech is where that speech is intentionally trying to incite violence or is otherwise posing a serious risk of imminent bodily harm (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Everything beyond that simply must be allowed, because it is not possible to make an objective determination of which speech is proper and which is improper.

It would be nice if it could come down to a matter of common sense.

For example, if you live near Jewish people, and you put up a Nazi flag on a 30' flagpole well... are you not intentionally harassing others in that environment? I would say it straddles the line of hate speech and inciting destructive behavior. Certainly if instead of a flag you stood on the street in a Jewish neighborhood and read Nazi propaganda on a megaphone you would be quickly arrested for disturbing the peace.

I concede that it's a very tenuous borderline issue. But I think it's giving people way too much credit to say that they are not intentionally trying to shove the border of harassment and provocative expression to put something up like a Nazi flag in a country which fought the Nazis, or in neighborhoods of people who suffered from the Nazis.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But I think it's giving people way too much credit to say that they are not intentionally trying to shove the border of harassment and provocative expression to put something up like a Nazi flag in a country which fought the Nazis

Not saying that what you're saying isn't true, but you'd probably get a much more violent reaction if you ran up a Nazi flag in many places here than you would in many places in Australia.

[TinCow]

It would be nice if it could come down to a matter of common sense.

For example, if you live near Jewish people, and you put up a Nazi flag on a 30' flagpole well... are you not intentionally harassing others in that environment? I would say it straddles the line of hate speech and inciting destructive behavior. Certainly if instead of a flag you stood on the street in a Jewish neighborhood and read Nazi propaganda on a megaphone you would be quickly arrested for disturbing the peace.

I concede that it's a very tenuous borderline issue. But I think it's giving people way too much credit to say that they are not intentionally trying to shove the border of harassment and provocative expression to put something up like a Nazi flag in a country which fought the Nazis, or in neighborhoods of people who suffered from the Nazis.

And what if you were a Jew and lived in a city of Nazis, and ran up the Israeli flag on a 30' flagpole? Would that be hate speech and inciting destructive behavior?

If the answer is yes, then what you are really talking about is suppressing any minority opinion, regardless of its merit, simply because it displeases the majority. That is the road to tyranny and oppression.

If the answer is no, then you are making a value judgment based on your opinion of what is right and wrong. Yet who gets to decide which values are the proper ones? What happens if it's a Nazi?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Ah, but this distinction requires you to decide first which speech is improper. By its very nature, such a decision suppresses minority opinions and opens the door for abuse. Many of the basic values we hold dear today were minority opinions at some point in history. Simply because they are less popular and considered vile by others does not make them inherently wrong or improper.

The only acceptable restriction on speech is where that speech is intentionally trying to incite violence or is otherwise posing a serious risk of imminent bodily harm (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Everything beyond that simply must be allowed, because it is not possible to make an objective determination of which speech is proper and which is improper.

Agreed. It s impossible to limit freedom of speech because in the end it always comes down to an opinion, or is open to interpretation. Inciting violence even, though it is clearly wrong, and should be stopped, leads to the question: where do you draw the line?

It is almost impossible to get a fix on the place where the line should be. Technically, I'd argue that using abusive language is 'inciting hatred' or at least practicing it. However, how many people can honestly say that they have never sworn at somebody... ever? I personally detest such language but in some situations, usually during a football game, I do 'abuse' people.

Rhyfelwyr argues that total freedom of expression is, like Communism, a mindlessly impractical ideology. It is... to a point. However it is also clear that being able to completely eradicate any speech, literature or media which incites hatred is also way beyond the realms of possibility.

It is my personal belief then, that people should have the right to display their allegiance to any group they so wish, or to say whatever, so long as it doesn't pose a physical risk to anybody in the vicinity

Not saying that what you're saying isn't true, but you'd probably get a much more violent reaction if you ran up a Nazi flag in many places here than you would in many places in Australia.

I'd agree, this really wasn't that well covered over here. Although I did hear as a sort of sidenote this morning that the guy had taken it down and replaced it with an Australian flag.

[Koga No Goshi]

And what if you were a Jew and lived in a city of Nazis, and ran up the Israeli flag on a 30' flagpole? Would that be hate speech and inciting destructive behavior?

If the answer is yes, then what you are really talking about is suppressing any minority opinion, regardless of its merit, simply because it displeases the majority. That is the road to tyranny and oppression.

If the answer is no, then you are making a value judgment based on your opinion of what is right and wrong. Yet who gets to decide which values are the proper ones? What happens if it's a Nazi?

Let me put it this way. Freedom of speech is a right. It is not an invulnerability shield from responsibility in what happens when you choose to run your mouth off with hate speech or offensive pro-genocidal political leanings. It is too often touted as if it should be such. When the KKK holds a rally in a black neighborhood, and a virtual riot erupts, I consider those KKK members absolutely responsible to a great degree for what happened. Even if it was in their "rights" to say or express any viewpoint, the law should and frequently does recognize that there are certain expressions in certain contexts which make the speaker responsible or at least no victim in the eyes of the law for provoked reactions.

Let me put it this way, if this illustrates it any better. If you walk up to a black man and say, aggressively, in his face, that you wish the entire black race was wiped out.. and he punches you, and you sue him for assault, and the judge tosses the case out, I'd say good for the judge. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from responsibility for your speech. No legal injunction should gag order the man from expressing his viewpoint. But neither is he a victim if he goes around provoking racially motivated violent outbursts around him.

[TinCow]

Let me put it this way. Freedom of speech is a right. It is not an invulnerability shield from responsibility in what happens when you choose to run your mouth off with hate speech or offensive pro-genocidal political leanings. It is too often touted as if it should be such. When the KKK holds a rally in a black neighborhood, and a virtual riot erupts, I consider those KKK members absolutely responsible to a great degree for what happened. Even if it was in their "rights" to say or express any viewpoint, the law should and frequently does recognize that there are certain expressions in certain contexts which make the speaker responsible or at least no victim in the eyes of the law for provoked reactions.

Let me put it this way, if this illustrates it any better. If you walk up to a black man and say, aggressively, in his face, that you wish the entire black race was wiped out.. and he punches you, and you sue him for assault, and the judge tosses the case out, I'd say good for the judge. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from responsibility for your speech. No legal injunction should gag order the man from expressing his viewpoint. But neither is he a victim if he goes around provoking racially motivated violent outbursts around him.

What you're describing is called assault (putting someone in anticipation of imminent bodily harm). It is a crime. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable for the victim to assume you were about to harm them, and to respond physically in self-defense. This is perfectly fine and reasonable and it's the law in every US jurisdiction I can think of. It also has a very good method of determination: bench trial or jury trial. In both cases, the individual situation is analyzed to determine if it conformed to the acceptable standards of society. This system works because it is flexible. It does not ban speech on an absolute level, but rather considers the circumstances of the speech before penalizing it. As a result, it does not infringe upon freedom of speech, nor does it harm our right to it, as it says nothing about the content of the speech, only the context.

This is in stark contrast to straight bans, be they on flags, books, or anything else. I simply cannot think of a single kind of speech, no matter how offensive or strange its manner is, that would not be acceptable under at least some circumstances. A blanket ban is thus overreaching and heavy-handed and results in harm to the very idea of freedom of speech.