Ancient Brit left a comment on a thread below, and the answer became so long and involved - and important, in my view - that I decided to move it up here to its own post. He wrote:
I find it interesting that while Europe has exercised moderate control over hate groups, America has not, and is fast becoming a safe haven (and recruitment center) for all manner of nasty antisocial movements. That doesn't mean that all Americans believe that it's OK to be racist, or misogynist, or anti-Semitic, but it does mean that dangerous ideas flourish and prosper instead of withering and dying.
What you call "moderate control", I call outright oppression. At this moment, there is one man in prison for holocaust denial (a vile idea, but that is irrelevant) in Austria and one woman on trial for anti-Arab comments in Italy. There are ministers being brought up on charges for making anti-gay comments in Sweden (thankfully the courts there overturned the conviction), and people getting visits from Scotland Yard for making even mildly anti-gay comments in England. And I do not for a moment believe that banning an idea makes it wither and die; in fact, I think the opposite is true. Do you think extreme nationalism has withered and died in Germany because of the laws there? No, it's just gone underground, where it bubbles up frequently in the form of anti-immigrant violence and the like.
Boundaries have to be set and maintained, whether in personal or wider social and cultural relationships; the alternative is growing anarchy and marginalisation of groups poorly equipped to defend themselves.
History denies this. In the US, at the same time that the courts have only increased free speech protection even for the most heinous of speech - even the KKK is allowed to march here, openly and publicly - the influence of those groups has only gone down. By any measure, minorities are far better off and less marginalized now than at any time in our history, yet this comes after half a century of increasing protections for the right of those who seek to marginalize them to express their views openly. At the same time, Europe has seen an increase in anti-immigrant violence.
I'm sure you'd agree that anti-Semitism is not to be countenanced. But equally it is pointless to wait until actions are taken and then only deal with the results of the actions and not the beliefs that drove them, otherwise you are forced into an endless loop with no resolution. You keep having to put out the same fires if you don't take steps to remove or reduce the flammables that feed them.
And yet Europe historically, and today again, has a far bigger problem with anti-semitism than the US does. If you doubt that, please read this report from Human Rights First about the resurgence of anti-semitism throughout Europe. A few samples from that report:
The smashed windows and graffiti-daubed walls of burned out Jewish schools, shops, community centers, and synagogues have been among the most striking signs of the violence. These appear against a backdrop of hundreds of attacks on ordinary people that go largely unreported, and a climate of intimidation and fear in which the possibility of attack terrorizes whole communities...
The rise of antisemitism in Europe has come to a head in the last three years, as a wave of hate crimes against Jewish people and institutions surged across the region. The attacks extended from the Welsh city of Swansea to the neighborhoods of Paris and the outskirts of Moscow (and on, to the port city of Vladivostok on the Pacific). The level of violence increased significantly in the course of 2002 and continues today at a high level in many parts of Europe...
The litany of antisemitic attacks in Europe over the past 18 months is long. Synagogues have been splattered with racist slogans, fire-bombed, and shattered with high explosives; Jewish cemeteries and Holocaust memorials have been desecrated; Jewish schools have been ransacked and set alight...
The continuing violence of 2003 and early 2004 largely follows a pattern set in 2002, a watershed year for antisemitic violence in Europe. Many countries then saw an increase in attacks on individuals because they are Jewish or thought to be Jewish as well as on community sites such as synagogues, Jewish community centers, and shops. Jewish cemeteries and Holocaust memorials were desecrated and severely damaged. Such
incidents were reported across much of Europe. A record of attacks on Jews by Europeans and immigrants who invoke the Middle East conflict when demonizing Jews has been a part of this picture of antisemitism. So too
are threats and attacks by organized political movements of the extreme right, including long-standing neo-nazi movements in Western Europe and ultra-nationalist movements in the Russian Federation. Attacks by racist "skinheads" continue to be a common feature of antisemitic violence.
So much for the notion that Europe's "moderate control" of such groups makes them "wither and die". Europe has a far bigger problem with incidents like this than the US does despite far more legal control over the expression of hateful ideas. There are ways in which Europe is far ahead of the US in important ways, particularly when it comes to acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality. I only wish my country was nearly as advanced in that area. But when it comes to freedom of speech, I'll take the US system and it's not a close call.
I agree that anti-semitism should be denounced, disproven and condemned; I do not agree that it should be turned into a crime unless and until the person holding those views actually does something that harms another against their will or violates their rights.
With liberty comes the responsibility to exercise its use with care and consideration for others.
With consideration for the rights of others, not for their opinions. We all have opinions that others find highly offensive and inflammatory, but no one has any legal responsibility to change those opinions, or not to express them, just because they offend someone. You are free to think and say virtually anything you like. You can believe that Christians are stupid and evil, or that non-Christians are stupid and evil. You can believe that women or blacks or gays are the most vile people on earth, and you have the right to say that; I also have the right to say the same thing of you and to condemn you for your bigotry. What neither of us has a right to do is violate the rights of the other person, harm them against their will, or rob them of their property.
And that's the one thing I noticed above all else when I first came to the US almost exactly eleven years ago - just how close to the edge of anarchy America teeters.
By what measure, exactly? I would argue that America is nowhere near anarchy. Hell, we're nowhere near having the degree of personal freedom that we ought to have, forget anarchy.
It frequently appears that there are a sizeable number of people here who believe that liberty means the freedom to do and say whatever you like, and to hell with everyone else.
That is a strawman. No one that I have ever known believes that liberty means the freedom to do or say anything you like. What I and other libertarians believe is that liberty means the freedom to do or say anything you like as long as you do not deprive another of their equal rights or harm them against their will. That is the definition of rightful liberty that Jefferson offered, and I agree with it completely.
- Log in to post comments
Good post, well reasoned.
I think this is one of those situation where the best way to deal with something is very different from what people "feels" the best way is.
It might be a little gross: but the best way to heal is not to pick at the scab, leave it alone and ignore it - no matter how bad it itches!
This subject is far too complex to argue that hate crimes laws has a major effect on racism in either direction. The histories of Europe and America are so different that its very hard to tell how much impact one particular aspect of the legal system has.
While there are certainly cases where people are being tried for what amounts to little more than thought crimes, such cases are still pretty rare, and the fact that they make for big headlines when they happen demonstrates a healthy amount of unease at their prosecution.
My biggest beef with US constitutional freedom of speech is how it has been interpreted to prevent laws from limiting the amount of cash you can spend to buy--er, fight--an election. I'm not an expert, and I guess there might be ways to enact spending limits constitutionally, but the courts are making it mighty hard to find them.
tacitus wrote:
I would say that if our biggest problem with free speech is that we interpret it too broadly, we're in pretty good shape.
You could have added mention of the phenomenally crap British libel laws...
I've got to agree with you. The state of the law in the UK makes it very easy to punish "hate crimes", but personal comfort isn't worth the freedom-crushing effects of the ASBO and dispersion orders.
Wow. I hadn't anticipated two things: one, that my response would generate a reply, or two, that it would be so lengthy. Plenty of meat on this bone to pick, that's for sure.
I'll try and be brief (mostly because I know my own tendency to expand replies by orders of magnitude).
Executive summary: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, and wait and see what happens. I believe wholeheartedly in Evolution in all its forms - there's just too much evidence that supports it - and so I fully expect the passing of time will show which approach works better in this era - Europe's or America's.
Well, what you call Democrat we call right wing conservative, and what we call socialist you may call communist - our perceptions are different. I call outright oppression what the former Soviet Union did to its citizens who advocated democracy, and what China does likewise today. Europe is nowhere in that league. The prosecution of those who incite hatred is a just response, IMHO. Perhaps some in America haven't developed enough awareness to recognize some basic truths, one of which is that expressing a view or an opinion can be
Until someone understands and accepts that, then they fall into the category of someone who exercises their liberty without responsibility, something I mentioned previously.
Oops. I don't think there are too many minorities in the US who'd agree with you there. It reminds me of something I was told recently by a relative in the UK who spoke to an American visitor. The visitor was adamant that everyone in America has access to basic medical care, something that is blatantly untrue - but she obviously believes it completely. That's a blind spot, one of many.
Europe has had a problem with anti-Semitism for a long time. Sometimes it has even been entrenched in our literature. Read Sir Walter Scott or Dickens and you'll find anti-Semitism aplenty. It seems to come in waves, like anti-immigration movements. That doesn't mean we're proud of it or that we don't do something about it (despite the claim in the report). But if you don't classify it as a problem (because you don't believe that views cause harm) then you won't see it. I suspect that may be the case in the US.
My suspicion is that the recent rise in anti-Semitism in Europe is fuelled by specific groups who have a long history of anti-Semitism in their culture, where it is not controlled (may even be expected). It's certainly not the general view of the majority. If it was, then David Irving (I'm assuming that's your reference to a man in prison in Austria) wouldn't have been imprisoned.
Another poster mentioned that you shouldn't pick at a scab if you want it to heal. That's an old wives' tale. The necrotic tissue delays healing, which is why it's removed from some patients in hospitals as part of the general cleaning of major wounds and to expedite healing.
Just because anti-Semitism hasn't withered and died yet in Europe is no reason to stop trying to excise it.
But what if their opinion is that you're infringing on their rights? Who should judge whether an infringement occurs - the perpetrator or the victim? If it's the perpetrator, then there will be no infringements ever. (Let alone the fact that if I recall correctly, Jefferson was talking about a person and their property, and that they should be free to do with either as they saw fit. The world has changed in the last two centuries, and what was true in Jefferson's time is no longer true today - just as what was true in the 10th century is no longer true today, one of the many reasons I disagree with the stated aims of certain fundamentalists).
If someone actually is stupid and evil then saying so is only stating the truth. However, if they're not stupid and evil but you persist in stating that they are, you're infringing on their right not to be unfairly characterized. Now if they're poor and you're wealthy and they can't afford to pursue a suit against you, then they should be protected by government. That's one of the things governments exist to do. (Although, as we all know, some do it better than others, and some don't do it at all).
By many measures. Civil disobedience is one - the more there is, the closer you are to anarchy. I have never seen so much evident public contempt for government, law enforcement, or even the rule of law than I have seen in the US in the last decade. It's been said that a society gets the police force it deserves; how true that is, I really don't know. Taking potshots at the head of state is another (and I don't mean Jay Leno's monolog). Aside from a failed bombing attempt by the IRA (not a group that could be said to represent the British voting public) we've not had an assassination of a British Prime Minister in the UK since 1812 (first and only so far). Lack of investment in the citizen is another. Those countries that implement wide ranging social welfare programs seem to have a healthier citizenry with a better quality of life than those who don't (the welfare system in the US is a far cry from a real welfare system). Level of violence per capita is another. Gang activity is another. Substance abuse is another.
One last one:
Suppose they believed one thing but their actions belied their stated beliefs?
We know that's true of certain religious groups. They don't believe they're lying - they are convinced that what they say is true, even while they practice the opposite. For whatever reason, they cannot see the disconnect between the two.
Just a thought...
Ancient Brit wrote:
Okay, when someone says something hateful, what right is violated? Be specific. And then tell me how on earth we can enforce such a right coherently and consistently without choosing sides. I'll give you a few examples and you tell me which ones are "inciting hatred" and which ones are not:
Person A: "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. The Bible makes clear that God created sex for procreation between a man and a woman. Those who choose to engage in homosexual relations are destroying what God created. They are willfully engaging in a sin and they will pay for that sin by spending eternity in hell."
Person B: "These Christians who quote the Bible to justify their homophobia are vile, hateful people. Society would be better off if they did not exist so the rest of us could live our lives in peace."
Does the first statement incite hatred toward gays? Should it be banned? How about the second one, does it incite hatred toward Bible-believing Christians? Should it be banned? Polciing ideas rather than actions puts the government in the inevitable position of picking and choosing which statements are "hate speech" and which are not. In England, in Canada, and in Sweden, formal charges have been brought against people making statements like the first one; statements like the second one are made all the time, but I have never heard of a single person ever being arrested under such hate speech codes. Or let's try another one.
Person A: "Islam is a religion of hate that teaches its followers to destroy Christians and Jews and to wage holy war against infidels. Those who believe such things are the enemy of everything good and decent in the world, and unless they are stopped they will destroy all vestigages of freedom in the Western World. They are now importing these barbaric ideas to the West and constitute an internal enemy because they refuse to accept our customs and our insistence on freedom for everyone, not just for them."
Person B: "Islam is the only true religion and the Quran is the indisputable word of God. The Quran teaches us that apostates are to be put to death. It teaches us that women are to be subservient to men and it teaches us that any human institution that does not submit to the will of Allah is to be destroyed. Christians, Jews, infidels, gays, and anyone else who refuses to follow the Quran must be made to submit to the will of Allah."
Oriana Fallaci is on trial right now for saying something like the first one. I know of no Muslim who has ever been brought up on such charges for making statements like the second one, and those statements are made all the time throughout Europe in extremist mosques. I could go on with examples like this all day long. Giving the government the power to prosecute ideas that they deem as hateful inevitably means the government is picking and choosing which thoughts they want to get rid of and which are okay. The notion that any government has the legitimate authority to enforce an orthodoxy of opinion is something that we left behind two centuries ago, and I have no desire to go back to it.
ME: By any measure, minorities are far better off and less marginalized now than at any time in our history...
Perhaps you should reread what I said. I didn't say that everything is perfect in America. I said that minority groups in America are better off and less marginalized now than at any time in our history. That is undeniably true, and I doubt any sane person of any minority would disagree with me. Feel free to name any minority in America that is worse off now than they were even one generation ago; I doubt you can. Laws which were common within my lifetime, such as laws that prevented interracial marriage or allowed wholesale discrimination against blacks, women and other minorities, are now all but unthinkable. No one would dare to call for such laws today, yet 30 or 40 years ago people gave their lives in the fight against them. Even America's most obvious civil rights problem at the moment, that of gay rights, doesn't even come close to denying the truth of my statement. By any measure, gays are infinitely better off in our society today than a generation ago. We aren't perfect by any means, and we still have a long way to go (and I'm active in the fight to keep making that progress). But it is wrong to the point of absolute foolishness to pretend that minorities are not far, far better off today than at any time in the past. And remember the point, all of that progress took place while simultaneously we have protected more and more the right of even groups like the KKK to speak their mind in public. That's very difficult to explain in light of your claim that allowing such speech is bad for minorities.
You're missing the point. Your argument was that the "moderate" hate speech laws in Europe allowed hate groups to "whither and die", while the licentious laws in the US allowed them to flourish. And you specifically pointed to anti-semitism as an example. Yet no serious observer would dispute that Europe has a far bigger problem with anti-semitism than the US does. There's a reason why so many European Jews fled to the United States, because they were far safer here. And that's with our laws that allow anti-semitic views to be expressed without legal ramifications. Bear in mind that the attorney who defended the KKK's right to march in Skokie was Jewish. What he understood clearly was that if you give to government the power to prescribe what is orthodox and acceptable opinion, no point of view is safe - particularly a small minority like the Jews, who had been oppressed by governments claiming just such authority for centuries.
Well it obviously cannot be as simple as "whenever anyone claims that their rights are infringed, then they are infringed". Stop and think about this for a moment. You are proposing that a person has a right not to be offended by the views of others. How is it possible to enforce such a right? Every single person on earth has ideas that offend them, me included. Likewise, every single person holds opinions that others find offensive. By your reasoning, every single person is a victim, and every single person is a victimizer. You seem content to have government enforce laws against opinions you find offensive, but what if the government decides that your ideas are offensive? It wasn't so long ago that books advocating gay rights were banned in many places because they were considered offensive and corrosive to public morality. Do we really want government deciding which ideas can be expressed and which can't? Minorities typically end up on the losing end of such illegitimate authority.
But the government does not have the authority to decide who is stupid and who is not, or who is evil or who is not (except by their actions, of course). Some Christians think gays are evil; some gays think Christians are evil. Given that Christians are in the vast majority and gays are a tiny minority, do you really want the government deciding which of those views should be protected and which should be punished? Or take that Muslim issue in Europe, where some Muslims advocate the most vile and hateful sentiments on a daily basis, but a journalist is arrested for saying bad things about those vile and hateful people. We have libel laws to protect people against false accusations of fact that damage their reputation. But no one has a right to avoid criticism for their behavior or their beliefs. No one has a right to have anyone who is critical of their beliefs or their actions thrown in jail.
What kind of hatred? Hatred toward particular targets, or hatred in general?
Good Lord, man, you're repeating rhetorical talking points without even thinking about what they actually mean. At least, I hope you're not thinking of what they actually mean -- if not, you are indeed a fascist.
Ed, you get my vote in this argument.
I'll only make one other comment. AB says:
If anything, just the opposite. Civil disobedience is a measure of a lack of anarchy. The fact that we can disrespect and protest our government and not degenerate into violence is a testament to the strength of our system of beliefs.
It seems to me that Ancient Brit is ignoring the benefits US-style free speech has brought to that country: racism is a thing of the past, openly bigoted politicians are hounded from office, hate groups are ridiculed into irrelevance, scapegoating of minorities in unheard of, and, most importantly, all manner of political viewpoints are allowed to be heard on a grand stage -- why, just tune into any of the debates on CSPAN. A veritable smorgasborg of political opinions. You should have it so good.
Comparing fellow Scandinavian Sweden and Denmark, of which Denmark by far has the more liberal free speech legislation, I'd say that the liberal free speech truly marginalizes the violent factions of e.g. racist groups. Denmark has no laws banning nazist propaganda, religious satire (remember?), and so on. We also have next to no hate crimes resulting in deaths or serious injury.
Not so Sweden, otherwise a very similar country. Politicians and news editors have an unspoken agreement not to criticize immigrants or ethnic minorities, whether warranted or not. Worse, editors don't allow politically incorrect letters to the newspapers. The result: during recent local elections, politicians said something completely different when the camera was on, than when it was not. They did have genuine problems that could not be part of the public discourse. Another result: Sweden has a much more powerful neo-nazi movement than Denmark, and many more serious hate crimes to boot.
To me, the obvious lesson is that liberal free speech laws may provide a larger degree of discomfort as idiots get their ideas published for all to read, but the 15% (here anyway) who are (moderately) xenophobic do get a say in political matters. And we don't get all the violence.
Ancient Brit wrote:
But if you don't classify it as a problem (because you don't believe that views cause harm) then you won't see it.
Wow -- two non-sequiturs in one sentence! First, we Americans do indeed classify bigotry as a "problem," which has nothing to do with whether we recognize that views can cause harm. Furthermore, none of this means that we don't see the problem -- especially since the "problem" expresses itself freely every day.
I have never seen so much evident public contempt for government, law enforcement, or even the rule of law than I have seen in the US in the last decade.
That contempt comes primarily from the people currently in charge of our government -- not from ordinary people, most of whom are quite willing to accept our current system of laws as THE legitimate law of our land.
Just because anti-Semitism hasn't withered and died yet in Europe is no reason to stop trying to excise it.
Excise it how? Suppressing free speech clearly isn't working. Have y'all tried assimilating immigrants better, educating them according to your values, and making your values really work for them? The rioting by poor Muslims, in isolated ghettoes in the middle of some of the greatest cities on Earth -- not to mention the killing of Theo Van Gogh -- kinda implies an answer of "no."
But what if their opinion is that you're infringing on their rights? Who should judge whether an infringement occurs - the perpetrator or the victim?
Um...how about a judge applying US Constitutional law? Works for us.
Do I really have to remind Ancient Brit that gay-bashing bigots in the US use exactly the same excuse to keep gays in the closet: "Letting gay homasexuls breathe is a violation of my religious convictions as the flashiest televangelist interprets them! I'm so hurt and offended! When will this persecution STOP??!!!" Aren't bigoted Muslims in Europe already using their "hate speech" laws to stifle -- or at least tone down -- criticism of their bigotry and backwardness?