OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[trev]

I thought about publishing the cartoons on Real Festival Music to show
solidarity with the free press.  I am ashamed to say that I have not done so
for fear of the Islamic murderers. I am truly ashamed.

trev


----- Original Message -----
From: "M Holmes" <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech


> 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
>