OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[M Holmes]

Nick Medford writes:

> >No I agree that it was.  At that point though people were essentially
> >responding to the exercise of freedom of speech with threats of
> >murder, arson, and other illegal acts.  It became important to assert
> >our rights to FoS and some newspapeers did this by reprinting the
> >cartoons.

> Yes, that's the argument for the reprints.  I am not sure about this
> though.  As a hypothetical, suppose some newspaper printed some
> cartoons or caricatures which many black people living in the UK found
> objectionable, and let's further suppose that areas such as Moss Side
> and Brixton erupted in fury as a consequence.  Would it really be
> "important", or even acceptable, for the cartoons to then be reprinted
> all over the place in support of the free speech principle?

If those rioting were demanding the removal of rights to FoS then yes,
absolutely.

As far as the halfwit Imams and the rabble they roused goes, I'd have
been happier if *every* newspaper in Europe had printed them in one day.
It'd have gone a lot further to show that we won't be intimidated.

Plus, if they were really bothered about those pictures, they'd just
have STFU because there's at least a billion more people have seen them
as a result of their whining than would have otherwise.

> >It'd have been much the same if Arab countries had demanded we quit
> >eating bacon sarnies because the Koran says it's forbidden.  A fair
> >response to it would be to build a bacon sarnie so large it could be
> >seen from space and invite all to participate.

> I agree this might be fair, but would it be wise?

I think so. Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble when
the government did it over threats to Rushdie. Let's show them, in a
dignified and sober way of course, that we're as serious about our
rights to FoS as they are about their rights to proclaim the Koran.

If we do it solidly enough, who knows, maybe they'll finally get it.

> And where does it leave your earlier criterion of "forseeable harm" as
> the limit to FoS? Because you now seem to be saying that forseeable
> harm should be the determinant of limiting FoS, EXCEPT where the
> principle of free speech is itself at stake.  And clearly this
> exemption could be held to cover just about anything.

No. In fact I'm trying to find a distinction between deliberate
incitement "Let's kill all the infidels!", reckless stupidity (shouting
"fire" in a crowded theatre) and speech which people choose themselves
to react to in irresponsible or illegal ways, such as burning down an
Embassy over cartoons or the Anti-Nazi League trashing a BNP
minibus after a speech by Nick Griffin.

If you've encouraged someone to act illegally (and Trev's song might
well count here) and they do it, I think incitement or conspiracy is a
fair call. If someone else acts illegally just to respond to legal
speech, but that speech is not incitement, then I think the legal hammer
should fall on them, even if their previous distemper has made it a
forseeable result of the speech.

Short form: don't tell someone to act illegally where there's a chance
that they might.

> I think one of the most difficult things about this debate is it
> brings into focus the question of principles vs practicalities.  Does
> it make sense to assert and uphold what is a perfectly good and noble
> *idea*, when by doing so all sorts of real-world mayhem is unleashed?

Anyone can uphold a noble idea when it's no trouble to do so. The
historical test is very much whether they an uphold it in face of
difficulties, or even threat to life. From what little I know of arab
culture, it seems obvious that if we sell the pass now, rather than see
it through, arab governments, and arabs in general, will conclude that
we're not serious about it anyway.

> On the other hand, if you *don't* uphold the idea, what else might you
> be risking? And the difficulty of navigating between these two
> opposing questions is precisely why this issue is far from simple.

I think the principle is relatively straightforward. Only the tactics
are complex. Nevertheless, we have one surrender (Rushdie) to make up
for. We shouldn't fail to make the stand here.

> >If folks get their knickers in a twist over it then that's just too
> >bad.

> Perhaps...  but could you really explain that so airily to, let's say,
> the family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if they made
> it known that they held you partly responsible for provoking the
> violence?

I don't doubt that'd be difficult.  However we have more than a little
experience of what happens when such freedoms vanish.  That can involve
explaining to millions of families why we failed to defend the freedoms
that would have protected their children. Going along to get along with
fascists simply does not work.

FoFP