On freedom of expression and religious defamation

[S.A.M.]

Following up on this article here:

'Islamophobia' a threat to world security, say Muslim states
9 hours ago
DAKAR (AFP) — The world's Muslim countries warned Wednesday that an "alarming" rise in anti-Islamic insults and attacks in the West has become a threat to international security.

I was surprised to find this:

«Freedom of expression should not be considered a license to offend,» said Maud de-Boer Buquicchio, deputy secretary general of the Council of Europe, a pan-European human rights watchdog.

She said Wilders had an extra responsibility not to humiliate Muslims because he holds a public office. She also recalled past judgments by the European Court of Human Rights which have endorsed restrictions on freedom of expression to protect Christianity against insults and said other religions should be entitled to similar treatment.

I could not find any restrictions endorsed by the ECHR, does anyone know what the restrictions were?

 

[Norsefire]

I have always found "freedom of speech" highly overrated. While certainly an individual should be free to express his thoughts, if he does not do so in an unbiased, formal and respectful manner in regards to political messages he might as well not do so at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom to throw insults at people.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I have always found "freedom of speech" highly overrated. While certainly an individual should be free to express his thoughts, if he does not do so in an unbiased, formal and respectful manner in regards to political messages he might as well not do so at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom to throw insults at people.

It is in my country. The only speech that is not protected is:

• Encouraging someone to overthrow the government of the United States by force;
• Lying to someone to manipulate him into doing something he would otherwise not do, in order to enrich oneself (fraud), to entertain oneself (yelling "fire" in a dark theater), or simply to cause financial or other harm;
• Lying about someone to denigrate his reputation (slander);
• Conspiring to commit a crime;
• Inciting a riot;
• and the controversial newly created crime of "hate speech" which generally requires use of extremely pithy and offensive language such as racial slurs that express no denotative meanings.

Insulting someone, without going to the extreme of "hate speech," is permitted. Virtually anything, true or false, may be said about a "public figure"--politician, entertainer, star athlete, famous businessman, etc. Words and images used in humor or other artistic contexts are strongly protected and almost impossible to prosecute.

Anyone who wants to live in America is expected to have a thick skin or grow one very quickly. We are a rough-hewn people and we're proud of it.

 

[greenberg]

Anyone who wants to live in America is expected to have a thick skin or grow one very quickly. We are a rough-hewn people and we're proud of it.

And yet Americans are the masters of Political Correctness!

 

[S.A.M.]

Uh this is not a discussion about the US but the EU

I could not find any restrictions endorsed by the ECHR, does anyone know what the restrictions were?

Anyone?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

If I publish a book saying that people will go to hell unless they perform a set of specific tasks haven't I defamed a lot of people? - unless the list of tasks is pretty universally performed.
Is it better to imply that some people are evil?
Should we measure the amount of offense taken or the amount of offense intended and how do we measure these things?
How does power play into this?
When am I allowed to kill because of what someone said?

Who is defaming my religion more: those who defame it in words or pictures or those who claim to be members and kill the defamers?

Can't God defend himself?

Who, in any group, has the courage to let their own children decide?

 

[S.A.M.]

If I publish a book saying that people will go to hell unless they perform a set of specific tasks haven't I defamed a lot of people? - unless the list of tasks is pretty universally performed.
Is it better to imply that some people are evil?
Should we measure the amount of offense taken or the amount of offense intended and how do we measure these things?
How does power play into this?
When am I allowed to kill because of what someone said?

Who is defaming my religion more: those who defame it in words or pictures or those who claim to be members and kill the defamers?

Can't God defend himself?

Who, in any group, has the courage to let their own children decide?

Thats why I'm asking what the restrictiions of the ECHR are.

Do you know?

 

[mikenostic]

I have always found "freedom of speech" highly overrated. While certainly an individual should be free to express his thoughts, if he does not do so in an unbiased, formal and respectful manner in regards to political messages he might as well not do so at all. Freedom of speech is not freedom to throw insults at people.

I can't fully agree with you.
Freedom of speech should be as lenient as possible. People who advocate restrictions on freedom of speech just indicate to me that they have thin skin and get all butt-hurt when someone says something derogatory. How about being the better person when someone insults you by just walking on by and ignoring them? Is it really that difficult?
If someone insults you and you get offended, they win. If you rise above it and just ignore them, you win; you render them powerless.
Let's use Don Imus' 'knappy headed hoes' as an example. I'm just dumbfounded at how many people got all butt-hurt about one simple little comment that some old, decrepid jackass made. While I dislike Imus anyway, the backlash he received only empowered him more and made him more popular. Even though is more infamy than fame, a lot more people know who he is now.
What about the backlash from that Danish cartoon? Instead of having a moderate cleric ask for (not demand) an apology from that newspaper, they had to go out and start riots and burn buildings down. WTF??
If someone is insulting someone or something else, they are insulting them for the very purpose of offending them. And if that person being insulted gets all offended and butt-hurt, and raises a stink and starts whining about it, they play right into the insulters hands.

 

[S.A.M.]

What about the backlash from that Danish cartoon? Instead of having a moderate cleric ask for (not demand) an apology from that newspaper, they had to go out and start riots and burn buildings down. WTF??
If someone is insulting someone or something else, they are insulting them for the very purpose of offending them. And if that person being insulted gets all offended and butt-hurt, and raises a stink and starts whining about it, they play right into the insulters hands.

Yeah, but when you're already pissed when you're provoked, are you likely to be thinking clearly?

But notice how people learn from experience, there were only demonstrations and flag burning when they published them again.

And now we're awaiting the release of Wilders film after the first disaster when Theo van Gogh was murdered for Submission. Hopefully the movie will be ignored, but its about calling the Quran fascist and frankly, I expect that it will make some people really angry.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Here's article 10. You have vague abstract possible restrictions which it seems are handled on a case to case basis.

ARTICLE 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

In Klass v. Federal Republic of Germany, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that restrictions placed on a guaranteed freedom are to be strictly construed and must follow a two step process. First, the state must offer proof to show that the restriction is permissible under the treaty, and, second, the state must show that the exception is necessary for the preservation of a democratic society. For example, ECHR Article 10(2) permits restrictions on speech that is blasphemous. This restriction does not imply, however, that governments may restrict all blasphemous speech, only such speech that threatens democratic society. The state must assume this burden of proof.

International law also considers a person's situation in society when restricting freedom of expression. The "duties and responsibilities" of a person, as called for in ICCPR Article 19(3), may differ from person to person. A person's right to protection against defamatory or slanderous speech, therefore, must be analyzed in relation to his societal duties. For example, in Lingens v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights held that a government official accused of holding an "accommodating attitude" towards the Nazis had to endure more criticism as a result of his public position. The Court ruled that public figures must endure more criticism than private persons in order for political debate, essential in democracy, to properly function. Defamation laws must honor this distinction. In conclusion, as an ICCPR signatory and a potential member of the Council of Europe, Belarus has the right to restrict speech in approved situations but must abide by the limitations that Handyside, Klass, and Lingens place on this doctrine.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Thats why I'm asking what the restrictiions of the ECHR are.

Our motivations were the same?

 

[S.A.M.]

Our motivations were the same?

So which one of them apply to Christianity? According to the original article

She also recalled past judgments by the European Court of Human Rights which have endorsed restrictions on freedom of expression to protect Christianity against insults and said other religions should be entitled to similar treatment.

 

[mikenostic]

Yeah, but when you're already pissed when you're provoked, are you likely to be thinking clearly?

Not at all. Color me guilty of that as well. However, one also has to be prepared for the repercussions of one's reaction of impulse too.
I.e. the reaction to the Danish cartoon didn't exactly help Islams claim to be a peaceful religion. (not trying to single out Islam, but that's the best example I have at the moment).

But notice how people learn from experience, there were only demonstrations and flag burning when they published them again.

Once again, I feel that flag burning is a stark overreaction. Burning a country's flag for what an independent newspaper did is immature.
That would be equivalent to say, a person gets fired from a job, then that person goes and burns that company's building down.

And now we're awaiting the release of Wilders film after the first disaster when Theo van Gogh was murdered for Submission. Hopefully the movie will be ignored, but its about calling the Quran fascist and frankly, I expect that it will make some people really angry.

Islam already has a bad image with most non-Muslims, unfortunately. The Wilders film could just be fueling the fire. However...I think that non-Muslims should be smart enough to realize that's what it is and take it with a grain of salt, and Muslims should realize that's what it is and take it with a grain of salt. It baffles me that so many people are going to let one movie get under their skin.

How do you Sam, as a Muslim, feel about this film? Are you going to allow it to insult you or will you rise above it, ignore it and take it with a grain of salt?

 

[Tiassa]

Why are your rights important?

What about good faith and malice? What respect does anyone owe someone who goes out of their way to be violative and denigrating?

Oh, right. Just be the better person and shut the hell up. Whatever it takes to empower those who seek to hurt.

Sorry, my bad.

In the meantime, I find it strange that we should be so critical of religious people in Europe who got really pissed off about an intentional denigration of their culture in a vitally sensitive political climate when religious people in the United States demanded (and compelled) the government to extort a bunch of money out of a television network for a goddamned accident. If Danish Muslims could force the government to extort money from a newspaper, maybe they would try that.

One of the sad things about how so many people worry about their rights is that it's all about the individual. "My rights! My rights! Ow! I'm 'butt-hurt' because 'my rights' are 'violated'!"

Whatever. Societies exist for the benefit of the species. That's why our species has selected as it has. People do not exist for the benefit of societies, but societies exist for the benefit of people because the people are the species. People tend to forget to consider why their rights are important. And they end up making f@cking morons of themselves when they do.

So it's trivia time: Why are your rights important?

Answer: Because they help ensure that societies operate to the benefit of the species.

Highlight the blank space for the answer. But at least try to answer the question on your own first.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

So which one of them apply to Christianity? According to the original article

I think one could restrict the religious expression of Christians in the US, for example, (if they were subject to article 10) citing health and moral considerations - say around issues like homosexual rights, access to abortion, hate speech by Christians - quotes from the Bible against various kinds of sinners. Impartiality of the judiciary also seems like an area of concern.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why are your rights important?



First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

[(Q)]

"'Islamophobia' a threat to world security, say Muslim states
9 hours ago
DAKAR (AFP) — The world's Muslim countries warned Wednesday that an "alarming" rise in anti-Islamic insults and attacks in the West has become a threat to international security."

The Quran will justify any violence Muslims wish to undertake to remedy this situation.

"Perceptions" are key to justification.

 

[Tiassa]

So it's all about you?

First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

So it's all about you?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

In the meantime, I find it strange that we should be so critical of religious people in Europe who got really pissed off....

Pissed off is just peachy, to me. I am sure there are many who hate the fact that Muslims got pissed off. I think getting pissed off is de rigeur. It was threats of violence that put it over the edge for me. Muslims are, of course, not alone in this. Hell, I was travelling at the time the first Danish cartoons came out and some Muslims were suggesting that tourists from Scandanavia should be attacked. I had to change plans because one of my fellow travelers and family members is swedish. Me changing travel plans, of course, is not a big issue, but that harming random people somehow associated with the 'crime' is considered a religious reaction is bizzare and wrong. And those, albeit minority reaction, defame the religion much more than cartoons. If a member of any group I identified with committed violence or planned it in the name of that group, that is my primary concern. Not how defaming their intended targets are. I am presented with very selective media, but still I have not heard even through alternative media of Muslim protests against the violence of their fellow or puported Muslims in reaction to the cartoons.

And if someone is going to come back with some thing the West or the US did, fine and dandy. But I am incredibly critical of the West. If I am in elementary school and Jimmy shoves Mary in the mud and Suzie sees this and kicks Timmy in the shin because, well, he is a boy like Jimmy is, I am, oddly enough angry at both Jimmy and Suzie.

 

[S.A.M.]

How do you Sam, as a Muslim, feel about this film? Are you going to allow it to insult you or will you rise above it, ignore it and take it with a grain of salt?

I don't let barking dogs bother me.

But it bothers me when people misrepresent what I believe for their own political ends. It also bothers me because there are already two countries destroyed due to people like that using religious rhetoric to pursue political ends. It bothers me because it will lead to more persecution of and discrimination against Muslims since people will just blindly believe what the movie will protray and finally it bothers me because maybe people will die because of one mans hate filled soul.