OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[M Holmes]

Nick Medford writes:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:33:44 GMT, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:

> > Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble
> > when the government did it over threats to Rushdie.

> I agree, but, as Jack Straw said (and yes, it sets my teeth on edge to
> find myself agreeing with Jack Straw about anything, but by the law of
> averages it has to happen occasionally I suppose), the *right* to say
> something offensive does not entail any sort of *obligation* to do so.

Contrariwise it doesn't entail any obligation not to. What's published
by the press is between them and their customers. We have the choice not
to buy it, just as does every Muslim in the world. If we decide not to
buy, then it's simple discretion to leave the transaction to buyer and
seller.

> I don't buy the idea that a decision not to reprint the cartoons would
> automatically be kowtowing to anybody.  It's a fine line, of course.

When folks are threatening death to those who publish? When similar
folks have actually killed people over similar incidents (translators of
Rushdie were shot and stabbed, one dead), I think it is kowtowing
to bow before threat.

> I would prefer to see journalists and editors exercising restraint (as
> has happened in the UK)

Restraint? When did the Press last discuss a picture without showing it? This
isn't restraint, it's cowardice.

> because they *can*.  Obviously I would not be
> in favour of any governmental intervention compelling them to do so.

Yup. If Jack Straw can't say "It's between them and their customers. The
government has nothing to do with it" then he should simply STFU.

[...]

> >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.

> Again, this ilustrates the difficulties of trying to apply these
> simple formulae to messy, complex situations, since you are in effect
> saying that any number of songs, books, casual remarks etc.  could be
> construed as "incitement" if someone acts in accordance with them.

Indeed. The fact that there will be messy cases is what makes juries
necessary for this sort of decision.

> Ever heard the Dead Kennedys' "Let's Lynch the Landlord"? (great song,
> btw).  Well, if you've not heard it, the title probably tells you what
> you need to know for the purpose of this discussion.  So- if someone
> did indeed lynch their landlord, and claimed that song had acted as
> incitement, then what?

The singer/songwriter has a day in Court?

> Now, as a self-appointed "reasonable man", I
> would feel that it was obvious that the song was, like Trev's, a
> fantasy.

Seems that most juries so decide, as in the Judas Priest case.

> But would twelve other "reasonable men" make the same call?

Looks good so far. I think Priest and Manson should have skated while
Hamza should not have. That's how it played out too.

> You seem to be saying that within your framework, you'd be unable to
> disagree with them if they found there had been an act of incitement.

I think you underestimate my admittedly pedestrian skills as far as
disageement goes.

> For an arch-libertarian this is rather problematic, surely?

Why? I believe in law and I believe in the jury system. If I disagree
with 11 people then I'll try to persuade them. If I fail well then
perhaps they were right...

> >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.

> Since there is always a chance they might, this comes down to "don't
> be seen to advocate anything illegal, even if you are doing so in
> jest, whimsy, or fantasy".  I *know* you can't really believe this.

Not quite. Obviously the idea needs refinement. Tricky stuff this
lawgiving innit?

> Personally- and this might leave me in a minority of one, but anyway-
> I am rather sceptical about the importance placed on "principles".
> Principles are not, after all, meant to be ends in themselves- rather
> they are guidelines for a decent life, interaction with others, and
> society.  There is always the risk that upholding a "general
> principle" can become a substitute for actually considering the merits
> of a given situation and its particular circumstances.

That's another great thing about juries: they can ignore the judge and
even the law and decide that the circumstances mean it just don't apply
in this case and let the defendant walk. Remember Ponting and the
Official Secrets Act?

[...]

> >> 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.

> Nice rhetoric

You're too kind.

> but there is, you will agree, some way to travel from
> "not reprinting a bunch of cartoons" to "deaths of millions at the
> hands of rampant fascism".

Some way yes, but the Germans showed us that it need take less than a
decade to get there. Seeing as my FoS muscles are probably pretty
exercised, I'd rather not end up in a Death Camp before I retire. It'd
play hell with my complexion.

Let's also recall that Saddam did in fact feel pretty free about gassing
folks he found disagreeable. It's not li

> Who can say whether the distance between
> "refusing to exercise restraint despite the escalating crisis" and
> "world war three (or similar)" might not be a shorter, more easily
> travelled route?

There's always that worry, but perhaps we shouldn't be paralysed into
inaction by it.

> Incidentally, as a digression, I am reminded of the furore over the
> 1997 Sensation exhbition at the Royal Academy.  You may remember the
> row over the painting of Moors murderess Myra Hindley, and that Winnie
> Johnson, the mother of one of Hindley's victims, asked for the
> portrait to be removed from the exhibition to protect her feelings.

Very vaguely I'm sorry to say.

> Mrs Johnson and some supporters picketed the gallery, leafleting those
> going in and out, and some people (though not Mrs Johnson herself)
> actually damaged the painting by throwing ink over it.  The board of
> the Royal Academy met to decide whether or not to keep the painting in
> the exhibition, deciding to do so, although three members of that
> board then resigned in protest at this decision.  I have often thought
> about this case- the reaction in the art world was overwhelmingly in
> support of the decision to keep the painting on show, but I was never
> convinced that the "principle" in this instance actually outweighed
> the terrible pain etched on Winnie Johnson's features every time the
> poor woman appeared on the news.

A hard call to be sure. Rather similar in some ways to the "Right To
Decide" furore. Perhaps there would have been merit in letting things
lie a little longer.

Conmpare and contrast with the victimology play in the Snowdrop
Campaign. Rather than have a painting taken down, the Dunblane parents
campaigned and got a ban on handguns and a trampling of our rights to
shoot and provide for our own defence. Now *that* was something worth
defending.

FoFP