There was a flap last week when it appeared that the US would agree to an international treaty outlawing ‘blasphemous’ speech. That seemed to be rolled back by statements from the US State Dept. that noted such laws would restrict free speech.
Some observers are not confident that the ‘roll back’ was neither sufficient nor meant to be taken seriously. Case in point is Stuart Taylor, Jr, writing in National Journal Magazine, a conservative political journal:
Troubling Signals On Free Speech
In his eagerness to please international opinion, President Obama has taken a small but significant step toward censoring free speech
Stuart Taylor, JrIt was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, “I strongly disagree” with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.
But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I’m not talking about its attacks on Fox News. I’m talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton’s own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.
Is it “negative stereotyping” to say that the world’s most dangerous terrorists are Islamists, for example? Many would say yes.
…
On the eponymous Volokh Conspiracy law blog, Eugene Volokh, professor of Constitutional law at UCLA and expert on the First and Second Amendments, believes that Stuart is essentially correct in his reading of recent events. Volokh briefly discusses Stuart’s piece and raises the question of how the US government should reply to a request/demand that intolerant speech be criminalized. He offers several possible answers—many informed by a certain political cynicism—and leaves it to his readers to bash it out in the comments.
The cynicism may be un peu de trop, but the agreement of the US government to limitations on free speech is troubling. In my view, religion cannot be carved out as an exclusionary zone where the freedoms to think and say what one believes become criminal. States simply should not have the power to punish anyone for what he thinks or what he says, with the narrowest of exceptions only. Religion is not a narrow exception.
Some might argue that this is ‘cultural imperialism’, insisting that a Western value, free speech, be imposed on cultures that give lesser value to that freedom. Perhaps it is. I would argue that the most expansive reading of a freedom is categorically better than a narrow reading, no matter which culture originates it. Without the freedom to think and speak, no other freedom can be said to truly exist, and that includes religious freedom. Instead, a human right becomes a gift from government, and that’s too much power for any government or group of governments to wield.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
October:31:2009 - 18:39
Wasn’t the UN designed to promote dialogue between nations? How can we have dialogue with restrictions on speech? I’d think with all the nasty accusations that fly around inside the UN, that comments about religions would be fair game. All is permitted when words are used between adults, as far as I’m concerned.
The UN is a joke.
November:02:2009 - 07:55
I really think you are quite exaggerating in your analysis, there is quite a large difference between “constructive” criticism and “freedom of speech” regarding religious issues. What we currently witness these days is an apparent disregard for fact or history itself. If one, for example, questions Islam’s connection with violence, he has every right to voice his concern but he should back that up with evidence either from ideological sources or references from Islamic tradition. One does not have the right to make assertions which extremely offend a large number of individuals without sufficient evidence. If, for example, one stated that the Holocaust was a mere fabrication by the Jewish people in order to gain a national homeland, they would immediately be rebuked by almost every leader, group, or political movement. In the US, I would almost certainly be prosecuted for religious incitement. Also, if one said 9/11 was a government conspiracy, they would be immediately rebuked and heavily criticized for inciting painful memories by the families of the numerous victims. I would just like to point out two key figures who are engaged in “such” incitement towards Islam and Muslim which causes so many Muslim countries to press for these regulations: Glenn Beck and Geert Hilders. Although these two individuals continuously attack Islam without ideological or traditional evidence, they still have quite a large following and are defended by several “rights” organizations. Why isn’t Ahmadinajad allowed to say what he “believes” in while others are given enormous support and virtually no boundaries in their sayings and actions? Double-standard………?!?!?!
November:02:2009 - 08:34
No, I think you’re missing the point of free speech!
Objectionable and offensive speech needs just as much protection as speech which everyone loves. The quality of the speech is immaterial. The reason is that free speech is a right inherent in the individual, not decided by a majority or by rulers. Once a majority or a ruler gets to decide on whether or not any speech is ‘good speech’, then the only free speech is ‘permitted speech’. ‘Permitted’ ≠ ‘free’.
Laws punishing Holocaust Denial are wrong. They might have made sense in a Wester Europe ravaged by war 65 years ago. They still weren’t right then, but they were understandable. Now, they inhibit speech and prohibit a certain form of it. People don’t need laws to tell them what they can or cannot think and say. The freedom to think and speak is fundamental to all other rights.
I am not an absolutist on free speech, that is, I think there can be some minimal limits. Speech intended to defraud, to create imminent violence, to libel, to create panic can and should be limited. Laws that penalize child pornography, totally, are fine with me. These are very narrow exceptions, however, and should remain as narrow as possible.
Not banned are lies, extravagant opinion, wrong conclusions, intolerance of difference, a misreading of history, or misapplication of rules of logic. Most certainly, expressions of opinion should not be banned. There are better responses to those kinds of speech.
Bad speech should be countered by better speech–as you define it, better informed speech supported by fact and history (I’m not so sure about ideology). I have little mental space to offer up to the likes of Wilders or Beck. In my book, they’re both idiots. Popular, perhaps, but still idiots. That their speech tends to make one group dislike another group is unfortunate, but it should not be illegal. Their speech can be effectively countered by the facts, but only if someone hasn’t banned the expression of facts, of course.
Freedom of speech does not mean speakers are free from criticism, even criticism from government. Criticism is not the same as criminalization. Everyone, from presidents and kings to the man on the street, should be free to say, ‘You know, that’s a really stupid statement.’ Ahmadinajad is perfectly free to say what he wants, including his belief that Israel should be wiped from the map. He should not be hauled into a court and told not to say it again.
His free speech, which I protect, is not without consequence however. People will hear it and question it… Does he mean it? Can he effect it? Is this a direct threat to Israel? If they conclude that his speech is a threat, then they will take what actions they believe best suited to it: ignore him, laugh at him, worry about him, vote him out of office, or at worst, go to war with him. Every right has a responsibility; if you’re not ready to accept the consequences of the free exercise of your right, then perhaps you should refrain from using that right, though you still have it, of course.
Free speech doesn’t have to be constructive, it doesn’t have to have any purpose that you or I can actually identify, in fact. That’s because you and I are not the judges of what speech has value. We can judge whether it’s valuable to us, individually, but not whether it has value for another person (in our role as parents, we can make those decisions for our minor children).
I don’t particularly like fiction set in the Wild West. It’s a waste of paper, as far as I’m concerned. Should that fiction be criminalized? Of course not. If I were to decide that prayer was useless, would I be right in declaring all prayer to be criminal and in demanding the jailing all who pray? Obviously not. There are prayers that call Jews, ‘pigs and apes’. Should those prayers be removed from books and lectures by force of law? I don’t think so. To propose that would be my right, but the exercise of that right would be met with a strong reaction, shall we say.
The problem with trying to control speech is that, in the end, it all comes down to whose ox is being gored. I think it impossible to protect all oxen (I’m always going to protect my ox before I protect your ox). Free speech at least permits all oxen to be gored equally. Unpleasant to watch, but better than the alternatives.
Here’s an interesting piece, from Volokh Conspiracy, talking about the subject in the context of the UN Human Rights Council:
How the Recent UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Freedom of Speech Exemplifies the Dangers of Authoritarian Regimes’ Influence over International Human Rights Law
November:02:2009 - 12:55
@ E.Qubaisy,
You haven’t given any real examples of how Holocaust deniers or 9-11 conspiracy theorists have had their right to free speech removed by the US government. In fact, on the private & public sector side of things, Ahmadinejad & 911 conspiracy groups have open platforms to say just what they believe. Ahmadinejad has spoken at Columbia University and the UN. The 9-11 folks are all over the internet spouting their version of things. How is a “double-standard” applied to them? Being “rebuked” is not the same as being thrown in jail.
Oh, and I ABSOLUTELY have “the right to make assertions which extremely offend a large number of individuals without sufficient evidence”. You then have the right to plug your ears and not listen or counter my assertions with your own set of facts. Remember it is the offensive words that have the greatest impact. No real change for good takes place without some person taking offense to the words that were spoken/written. I’d wager to bet that the people who you think have the most worthy words also offended some people when they spoke them. I won’t ban your offensive words if you don’t ban mine. Deal?
If you don’t like what Glenn Beck says or what Geert Wilders writes, then join in the fray and get your message out. You are not prevented from writing a book or beginning a radio talk show that addresses the topic so near and dear to you. The market of listeners will decide whether you are being truthful and constructive. Your success will depend on how you fare in the market place of ideas. Good luck.
November:02:2009 - 14:57
I’m really quite enjoying this dialogue as this is a great example of how constructive criticism/dialogue/free speech is supposed to work (this is of course only my personal view of how it should be…).
First of all, addressing Mr.John Burgess, I appreciate your well articulated and organized “defense” of free speech. I however disagree with you on several key issues. First of all, by stating that partial limits to free speech are fine with you, you are merely underling the core foundation of free speech, which is clearly the ability to say whatever you wish at whatever time you wish to do so. In saying, for example, that speech promoting child pornography should be limited or penalized, by what authority or mandate are you setting the limit? In my view (this is all theoretical of course) I may believe that child pornography is totally appropriate if the parent/guardian of the child approved. Although this argument may seem extremely perverted and insane, it is taking “freedom” to the extreme. Similarly, an individual who believes and actively prevents women from attending school, is doing so in accordance to a personal and concrete mindset that what he is doing is normal. This however is another “extreme”. The bottom line is, moral guidelines differ from culture to culture, from country to country, from civilization to civilization. The UN mandate/resolution, is merely an attempt to limit and minimize the bickering caused by ignorance and blind assumptions. Although a Utopian society will never be achieved, the resolution is a great stride in achieving this “Utopia” in which each individual bases their speech on fact and concrete evidence, not speculation and ignorant assumption. I know you would probably agree with me that such a society would be orderly, peaceful, and productive, however we all know that this is an impossibility. To sum up, the UN mandate is simply a strive towards perfection….
A second key point of difference is that of the right to free speech whilst accepting the responsibility of counter-action. I’ll give you a noteworthy historical example: Adolf Hitler, some say the greatest leader of all time. Not in his actions but in his articulated and moving speeches. He was able to captivate the German people and entice them to do what no individual would have previously dreamed of doing. According to you (I already addressed your acceptance of a partial limit to free speech), Hitler had the right to say what he said, to order what he ordered, if and only if he accepted the consequences of these actions. He never personally threw a Jew into a smoke-stack, his words and orders compelled others to do so. Hitler did face the consequences, his country and forces were annihilated by the Allied forces, but does that make the Holocaust a reasonable consequence to Hitler’s words?…
Now, addressing the views presented by “ratherdashing”.
) is that unsupported “blabber” should be punishable by law as it curtails the advancement of society at large, if everyone just thought before they spoke, we would be able to begin effectively tackling important issues such as poverty, economic injustice, and climate change. Just as I said earlier, what I want is basically a strive towards perfection……
You first of all request an example of how a Holocaust denier or a 9/11 conspiracy theorist has had their rights curtailed by the US government. I’d like to point to the recent media blitz over the actions of Obama’s former green-jobs czar Van Jones which forced him to resign. The media didn’t directly force him to resign, but the US government did so as a result of the media intensity. All he did, was sign on a petition by a 9/11 conspiracy group asking for further investigation into 9/11 claims. Did he incite hatred or claim that the US government was behind the actions? Not at all, he merely asked for a deeper investigation. How many times have you signed a contract, or any other document without fully reading the “fine print”? Although ignorance cannot be an excuse for Van Jones, he was certainly not given the freedom of speech in this case. A second example of a Holocaust denier not being allowed to exercise freedom of speech is as you said the invitation of Columbia University. The president of the university did not ask Ahmadinajad to support his claims by evidence or data, he immediately launched into a tirade against the Iranian leader during which he described him as a “petty dictator”. the stage wasn’t at all intended to be a debate over the Holocaust or an exchange of intellectual thought. I really think Ahmadinejad was quite surprised by his reception at the university. Over the past decades, we have seen the marginalization of Holocaust deniers, we however have not witnessed any substantive action taken against those who openly attack Islam based upon the actions of a number of individuals. On Fox and previously CNN, Glenn Beck was given paid access to American homes to spread his fictitious and ignorant views. Imagine a Holocaust denier being given airtime (close to an hour) to spread nonsense and absolute garbage. The media is quite clearly responsible for this, I haven’t seen any mainstream media outlet seek a response to any of these claims by a credible source. There are numerous Muslim scholars and theologians who would be able to destroy Glenn Beck or Geert Wilders in debate. I however think Glenn Beck and Geert Wilders, don’t deserve my time or effort to receive a response. If, for example, I was approached by an individual in the mental ward of a hospital and verbally attacked and insulted and called numerous things which have no basis or credibility, I would not respond but simply “turn the other cheek” and walk away. The same is to be said of Beck and others. If, for example, he says Islam is a violent religion and this is an example from the Quran, I would respond to that with the appropriate explanation of the verse in the context which almost everyone overlooks… That is not how Glen Beck attacks………… What I’m basically trying to say, (I’m tired of typing
November:02:2009 - 21:45
E. Qubaisy,
I hear what you are saying and understand the urge to criminalize opinions that we oppose. I can think of some people that I’d like to see behind bars because they don’t contribute to the “advancement of society” like I’d prefer. But, that is not the answer. When speech is shut down, the dissent festers and grows into another form. This dissent can turn to violence. America and other western countries have learned that by allowing free speech, informed debate will turn opinion that sets up a non-violent change of power during elections. Elections are little civil wars that are fueled by ideas and words and not bullets. I’m curious. What nation are you from and how do they change government control?
Van Jones did NOT have his words made “punishable by law” and he has NOT lost his “freedom of speech” as you claim. On the contrary, he’ll probably go on to write a book about his experience! He resigned from his job because he became a political liability for the Obama administration. That’s how the Washington political establishment rolls. He was costing Obama political capital that would be needed on other more important issues.
Ahmadinejad as well did not lose his opportunity to speak. The environment may not have been perfect for him but sometimes a leader has to address a tough crowd. He’s a big enough man to do that. You shouldn’t feel the need to defend him.
I don’t like unsupported blabber either and I wish everyone thought before they spoke. But, even this has a place. It gets topics out and into debate. Glenn Beck can be a catalyst for more speech about a topic that concerns you. If the relationship of violence within Islam is your pet topic then use Beck as an example and tell those few Muslim trouble makers how Islam is being perceived in the outside world. Think positive.
Again, the answer is not LESS speech but MORE speech. That gets us closer to “perfection.”
November:03:2009 - 00:38
E. Qubaisy,
You say “There are numerous Muslim scholars and theologians who would be able to destroy Glenn Beck or Geert Wilders in debate.”
Well, I didn’t know Beck was a theologian, but a Mormon-Muslim debate would be fun (My prophet vs your prophet….). I have never seen that kind of debate anywhere.
As to Wilders, it seems that the last thing Muslims want to do is debate the guy. Now silence him or kill him, that I would believe, but debate him, no. My impression is that Muslims are not very good at debates. I put it down to lack of experience and an unwillingness to subject their religion to scutiny and scorn that is common in an open, free-for-all debate.
On a sad note, closer to home, Faleh Hassan Almaleki has died from her injuries. Lets not forget Rifqa.
Kactuz
November:03:2009 - 01:15
Oops. Not ‘Faleh’ but ‘Noor’. Noor is the girl, Faleh is the father (not much of a father)
November:03:2009 - 09:37
You didn’t notice my saying that my support of freedom of speech is not absolute. There can be some restrictions, narrowly defined and applied, as in the cases of fraud or incitement to immediate violence.
When it comes to discussions of peoples, cultures, religions, politics, however, there should not be any restrictions because what we’re dealing with is value judgments, people’s own ideas about what vague and ill-defined concepts mean. Unless and until courts and police can actually do mind reading, then the most they can do is make assumptions about what a speaker means. If the speaker might be wrong or misguided, so might the authorities seeking to control his speech.
Enforcing speech codes on the basis that certain speech might be offensive or that it might be ‘wrong’ or ‘stupid’ is a vast overreach of state authority. It becomes a hammer too easily used by the state to beat down any opposition. We see it used in social contexts, too, when it becomes too easy to play the takfir card to end discussion before it begins. And where religion and the state are utterly intermingled, then the dangers escalate.
You point out the exact problem in your comment, though it seems that you’re unaware of it. You say, “…moral guidelines differ from culture to culture, from country to country, from civilization to civilization.” That is exactly why there can be no universal law to restrain speech. If a country or culture wishes to penalize ‘blasphemy,’ then there’s an argument–not a good argument, but an argument–that it should be permitted to do so. There is no argument, however, that supports imposing its values on the world, on people who do not share those values. It is a blatant attempt to impose those values on the entire human race that is offensive.
Your raising the specter of Hitler and Nazi Germany is misguided. Yes, Hitler had the right to say what he wanted. What he lacked was the authority (other than his self-sustained authority) to act upon his words. Speech is not action. Actions can readily be punished by law. I can extol the virtue of, say, arson in my speech. If I act by starting fires, I’m in a different realm. We’re not talking about speech, but about action and actions are constantly punished when they go against the law.
I’m sure ‘ratherdashing’ can argue his side well enough, so I won’t respond to those comments.
November:03:2009 - 09:41
I agree. Wilders can marshal facts to support his argument. He errs in the way he draws conclusions from those facts, extrapolating that because some Muslims behave badly, all Muslims behave in the same way. That’s a basic error in logic. But refuting his facts is something few seem to be willing to take on, probably because there are ‘bad Muslims’ who behave precisely as he describes.
I see no meaningful difference between his rants and those of Muslims who see a planned offensive against Islam by the West. They’re idiots, connecting dots that aren’t actually related. But conspiracy theories seem to be with us, no matter what.