Slashdot Mirror
Three Years in Prison for Posting Hatespeak
Vainglorious Coward writes "In the UK, a man has been sentenced to three years in prison for posting inflammatory messages to a website. Pleading guilty to inciting racial hatred on a site dedicated to the memory of a murdered black teenager, the 30-year old accused stated that he was not racist, and had intended to stir up an argument on the website, but did not believe in what he had written. The defending lawyer described her client as 'isolated and living in a fantasy world, spending hours on his computer in his room where his persona could be as he made it, good or bad.'"
In the former case, some choose to place their faith in the government and legal system, and draw satisfaction at three years incarceration for ignorant speech, at the risk of social fragmentation.
I think the Amish community would have simply shunned such a foul-mouthed fool, without putting money into lawyer's pockets, or wasting real estate on a prison.
Social progress.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It sounds like the guy needs help. Trolling is one thing, but trolling on website dedicated to the memory of a recently murdered teenager? Combined with the child pornography aspect, it's very worrying indeed.
So how does locking the guy up help anyone? He may have problems but that doesn't mean he's dangerous now; conversely, if he is dangerous now, then he needs psychiatric help, not prison. In either case prison is not the answer.
"Hitler started with an idea, slavery started with an idea, so it is good that this was stopped in time."
*Shudder*
Eerie resemblance to "thoughtcrime"...
Whilst I can't find the actual message I dare say that the length of the sentence was more to do with where he posted the message. The child porn sentence was only 6 months, and I think that child porn does more damage to society (and the individuals involved) than posting insulting words - the sentence seems disconnected to reality and manifestly severe (so expect him in the court of appeal).
I also wish that the rules would be applied evenly to everyone who breaks the law, how many of the people who carried signs including "behead those who insult islam" or messages supporting 9/11 and 7/7 ended up in prison? (other than the one who was on licence from prision already, and that was just for breaking bail conditions)...
Which isn't to say I support this guy, I just want the law to be fair and colour blind
Regardless of what you think of hate speech, once the infrastructure for persecuting people on their thoughts/attitudes/opinions is in place it becomes quite trivial to make it encompass your personal/ideological enemies. All you have to do is redefine "hate."
Anti-government speech --> anti-American speech --> hate.
Anti-religion speech --> hate.
Pro-religion speech --> hate. (look at verse X of book Y! so intolerant!)
. . .
Maybe it would would end up being more specific, or more round about, but what matters is that motivating ideology is now on the table as something that can be legislated for/against.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Most European countries have these, so it's not as though he was within social norms regarding illegal speech. It's illegal to display swastikas in Germany, for example, and European countries frequently outlaw other froms of racist, etc. speech. A Holocaust denier was recently sent to jail for expressing his beliefs; it's illegal in some other countries to criticize Islam. A difference between them and us: you can lose your job for using the n-word, but they can't put you in jail.
Even as a left-wing American, I like our way better in this respect; I'm all in favor of nationalized healthcare, six-week vacations, strong labor unions, and tasty food, but I do believe in freedom of speech.
The UK in recent years has been claiming the right to take away the freedoms of its subjects, despite the fact that it was once on the forefront of individual liberty. First, it banned guns, contradicting at least 400 years of common law, and now it's going after people for free speech. The authoritarians can invent a rationale for their tyranny against the people, but they'll never stop going after one freedom after another.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
There is a crisis as Britain's prisons are full...
Try makeing any untoward comments about your almighty presedent, and how to depose him (violently or otherwise) and then see where your constitution gets you.... Inciting crimes is illegal here (in the UK), as it is in the US. And sedition is a thorny one both side of the pond.
Because you can - or because you should?
Thats fine until one of them is charismatic, and ritch, and the counries in a bit of slump, and theres just been a large increase in imergration, and then bang! what might normal be a preasure rease valve for nut case, becomes the reason your neighbourhood is getting rounded up by death squads.... The worset thing about the second world war, is that it wasn't whitnessed by the whole world. My Grandad's still alive to tell me what it was like to see storm troopers march through a town killing as they went. My street still bares the marks of Nazi bombs. If I lived in America, this wouldn't be the case (or is much less likely). So please take it from me, crushing race hate is worth losing some smaller liberties. I don't mind tastless, unPC jokes even. But inciting violence is bad, is wrong, is more dangerous than your perceived loss of free speech (like I posted just now - you do not have free speech in America!)
Because you can - or because you should?
While I am all for Free Speech, there is a limit when someone starts actually calling for murdering specific persons. According to TFA, the perpetrator posted in response to the killing of Anthony Walker, a black teenager:
That's incitement to murder, hardly a category of protected speech.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Is just one step worse then trying to legislate morals.
.. pretty simple. ( yes, i know , its all about state control of the population, but i dont have to agree with it )
Its my right to hate who ever i want, for any reason i want, AND to tell people about it. You dont like what i say? Then dont read/listen
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So posting messages of race hate is x5 times worce than downloading child porn?
wtf....
Inciting violence is bad, but it's even worse when one group is allowed to do so and another one isn't, and all discussion about the subject has been banned under the guise of protecting people from hate speech (there's also the fact that anyone who does talk about it will immediately receive death threats and rioting from the group that's allowed to practise hate speech). I think this kind of situation will eventually explode into violence.
We do have a bit of a problem with that in the UK. (This is a general comment, without reference to the particular case under discussion about which I know nothing other than what has been in the news.)
... but we no longer have anywhere else.
Once upon a time people who were unable to lead a normal life in society were locked up in mental hospitals. But we've closed all those and replaced them with "care in the community". This policy, which in fact is implemented as "neglect in the community", has a variety of outcomes for the people concerned.
Some do actually cope with life on the outside (maybe they didn't need to be in the mental hospitals in the first place), with or without any extra support that they are lucky enough to receive. Some don't cope, and end up homeless and living on the streets, maybe dying of drug overdoses or exposure in winter. Some cope fine with keeping themselves alive but end up in prison because their behaviour, which they can't do anything about, is unacceptable to society.
Prison is generally reckoned not to be a suitable place to keep these people locked up, as you say
Of course, many people get -1 Troll because the person doing the moderating is a fanatic with an agenda, so maybe Slashdot's moderation system isn't really all that accurate.
"Try makeing any untoward comments about your almighty presedent, and how to depose him (violently or otherwise)"
Yeah, you'll NEVER see anything of the sort here!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it
- Voltaire
A quaint idea in todays world.
In the US if you were thinking the wrong thing at the time you commit a crime, your guilty of a hate crime. In France you can be charged with a crime for selling, and or distributing NAZI items. This UK example isn't unique to that isle. The ideal of free speech is being eroded, and nothing shows that more than the self censorship and reaction to the Mohammad cartoons.
It causes myself to ask questions like -
If we do not shun, or speak out against vile (but currently legal) speech, do we eventually loose the right to hear such speech because the state steps in?
Why are we (as a society) so afraid of words and their potential impact? Are we so imature, violent and framented that speech alone will destroy the cohesion of our societey?
While there are aspects of this case that seem to cry out for some attention, on the face of it, this guy committed a thought crime and is being sent to jail for it.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I'm guessing the limit on the child pornography charge was 6 months so the judge, out of disgust, gave him the maximum on the inciting charge...we see things like that all the time in the states.
Marky Mark Killed Jason Bourne!
So please take it from me, crushing race hate is worth losing some smaller liberties.
No! It isn't!
Everybody has a cause for which they believe it is worth the loss of 'smaller' liberties. But for whatever liberties we have (that do not infringe on the liberties of others), they are NEVER worth giving up.
The most important goal in any modern country should be to insure civil liberties. This is so that we can protect ourselves from the government, the entity who has the largest ability to harm us. World War II certainly was catastrophic (over 60 million casualities by some estimations), but it will be nothing compared to the suffering in the future if our population of over 6 billion becomes subject to police states. For each civil liberty that we give up, we get a step closer to that future.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't made up my mind on this particular case; I realize that some speech is considered a direct violation of people's natural rights. However, if a speech fails to rise to that threshold (and it is a very high threshold), than it ought to be free, and no number of casualities past or present should change that.
Be careful what you say; true liberties are NEVER worth giving up.
As found further down the threads re Swedish Laws. Its not what is hate, but what is threat that is judged. And its judged by the courts, not the government. I can say what I like about what I personally think of any given culture or 'race'. But I must not threaten. Threatening bahaviour is elegal. As it incites violence. If I told you in all seriousness the I withed harm to you and your family, IF it were seen as an actual statement of intent, then that would be illegal, here in the UK or in the states. Race need not (and you could argue, should not) come into it. Though due to its escalatory nature, race threats ARE a greater danger to a greater number of people. And so should be treated as such. i.e. Threats of that nature should be prosecuted with harsher enforcement and punishment. Again, many of those who were crrying threatening plackards at rellies, depicted in tabloids, WERE prosecuted! many will still be under surveilance (just as those in the BNP will have been). So it is more even handed than the media makes out.
Because you can - or because you should?
Of course the majority of people here will be in favour of no punishment for hate speech. They've never been on the other side of things to experience how hate speech always leads to physical violence.
They would prefer to protect their privilege of "free speech" while denying the minority of protection from harassment and physical violence.
This post will be modded down for sure, which seems pretty hypocritical of those advocates of "free speech".. this whole site is susceptible to group-think which also happens to be the WASP point of view.
Read some Plato!
Sadly the idealism of pretecting yourself from your government is a long lost cause.... They could destroy your country in a second. But! as long as you don't loose your society, the goverment knows its got something to loose by mistreating you.
Because you can - or because you should?
In the real world, you have the right to be offended... Are his remarks inflammatory? Yes. Racist? Definately. Without tact? Absolutely. But they are protected. (guess not anymore). I tire of people trying to prevent people from speaking their minds. I have a friend whose father said it best. "Back when I was a young boy, things were easier. When a white person diddn't like you, they just told you so... Now everyone just conceals their hate. Before at least you could see it was coming." If a person makes direct threats that's one thing, but tastless and tactless discussion of any kind should be protected. If you say something like "people should die for doing something", well, its stupid, but it should be protected. If someone says, I'm going to do something to these people", that's a warning, and should be taken seriously. So this guy does time for speaking his filthy little mind. Meanwhile, rapists get 3 months in prison... What a joke. Maybe give him 3 years for the child porno (six months, wtf?), but for saying some shit, I don't think so.
It's the people who don't inspire any sympathy that wind up as test cases for free speech.
The issue here is not whether people should sympathize with the troll, it's whether people should imprison him for three years. Of course he's contemptible. That can be different from being criminal.
Rubbish. Millions of people, famous and average, have said, openly and freely, that he is a bad president. They were not punished for it. Thousands of people have suggested that he should be impeached, openly and freely, and they have not been punished for it. Some people have even said that he should be murdered, and despite the fact that that would probably get you in trouble if you were talking about someone else, they were not punished for it.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Assault is the _threat_ of violence. Battery is committing the violence. Why shouldn't the threat of violence to a _group_ be a crime?
This is an instance where the U.S. should probably learn from the sad experience of "Old Europe". The U.S. hasn't experienced a Hitler yet and is simultaneously more fragile and dangerous for the innocence.
Sadly the idealism of pretecting yourself from your government is a long lost cause
This is a fundamental error that a lot of people make. The "government" isn't a group of aliens or some amorphous blob-like entity which is different from the rest of us. It is us. Its composed of people just like you and me, people who are your neighbours, friends and family. The only real difference is that they have been mandated by the rest of the people to do certain things, like enforce laws, or collect taxes. If you don't want these people to do certain things, the rest of the population needs to tell them that, change their employment contracts. Its when they refuse to listen to the rest of the people that a problem arises.
I think that three years in this case is an excessively long sentence, probably handed down by a judge trying to make an example of this man (am I the only one who feels that lawyers, lawmakers and judges are terrified of the internet for some reason?), but it could have all sorts of knock on consequences for any clown who gets his hackles raised in a flamewar with a troll on the internet, with spurious suits and wasting the time of the courts which could be better spent elsewhere.
Yes, what he said was very wrong and offensive. But three years in jail with rapists, murderers, violent criminals and drug dealers isn't going to make him any better a human being. If he was any way serious about his statements, what it will do is make him a much better connected hate monger. If he wasn't serious about his statements, he most likely will be by the time he makes it out.
The judge in this case could well be accused of knee jerk reactionism, and frankly an abuse of powers.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
This is the key issue here. I feel sorry for the victim and his family, but I don't think what his mother said here makes any sense:
Censorship was one of Hitlers most effective tools, so equating this verdict to "stopping Hitler" is absurd.
"I forgot my mantra."
waaaaait wait wait wait wait.
Let me get this straight.
*takes a moment to consider all of the variables*
Someone on slashdot once had a girlfriend?!
It is very uncommon to get in trouble for written text or speech. To get in trouble, what you say or write must have the potential to cause violence against minorities.
The reason is of course the Nazi history, which led to a stronger emphasis of the protection of an individual's dignity and safety.
However, there was an interesting verdict in Germany recently, where public display of anti-constitutional symbols (read: the swastika, SS runes or similar) is illegal except for educational or artistic purposes. The owner of a mail-order shop was fined 3600 euros for selling anti-nazi items that contained the swastika (crossed out, thrown in a trash can, etc). The court ruled it was commercial distribution of an anti-constitutional symbol. Reactions to the verdict were between disbelieve and outrage and the Minister of Justice suggested that if the verdict holds, the law would have to be changed.
If you read the article, it talks about child pornography as well, so I do not say it was unfair in this case.
See, and that's quite a similar thing. One could argue child pornography was freedom of expression, at least as long as the children weren't harmed. But luckily, society has agreed on giving the protection of children a higher priority than pedophiles' "right" to look at such material. Similarly, European societies have agreed on giving the protection of minorities a higher priority than racists' "right" to express their hatred against them -- because last time we didn't, it didn't turn out well.
What a society deems acceptable, or what it considers an individual's fundamental right, is based on it's culture and historic experience. Europe's history was very violent, with millions brutally murdered by the Nazis out of hatred against political, religious and racial minorities. That this experience had an effect on its culture can't come as a surprise to anyone. That this is reflected in its laws is only natural, especially since these laws have been written directly after WW II.
Likewise, what US society sees as its fundamental rights, like "unlimited" Free Speech (which really isn't unlimited at all), or the "right" to bear arms, has its roots in the experience of King George's reign. Its strong Christian roots, on the other hand, have resulted in laws against sexual expression which most Europeans would find utterly ridiculous, like that you're not allowed to sell penis shaped vibrators in Texas and that you have to pretend dildos are to educate about proper condom use.
That's incitement to murder, hardly a category of protected speech.
Just calling for violence doesn't automatically exempt speech from protection - SCOTUS ruled in 1969 that "[f]reedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
One can hardly argue that a posting on a web forum is an incitement to imminent lawless action - if he had been speaking at a rally of armed white supremacists who were already whipped into a race-hate frenzy, his ass would be hanging out in the breeze, but in this situation he would be untouched in the US. I doubt there would even be an investigation. One of the few good things left about this country - I don't agree with his beliefs; I find them downright repugnant, but I believe he has every right to express them and certainly don't think he's crossed the line in this case.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
ah, but that's what the purpose of a metamod system is. If an individual truly IS a fanatic with an agenda, he/she will find themselves unable to moderate for much longer. Plus, if mods are browsing at -1 as they should be insightful comments unfairly modded down should be modded back up in short order.
These weren't "hurtful" in the sense of hurting their self esteem, but in the sense of threatening to kill them. Since their son had actually been killed by racist thugs, this wasn't something that could be ignored.
I'm a Green lefty and here is my perspective on this, while I find racism abhorant speech acts cause physical to harm to on one, OTH the governments of the U.S. and the U.K. have KILLED tens of thousands of Muslims in an unprovoked war of aggression. Lets lock up war criminals who actually kill tens of thousands of mainly poor innocent Muslim civilians BEFORE we even consider banning speech acts?
Yes this guy is undoubtedly a great big dumbass to post hate speech on a forum commemorating the death of an innocent person. Whether being a giant jackass is a crime though I think should be open to the highest levels of doubt. Would reading Huckleberry Finn also be a crime in Britain since it contains the N word and an aborted lynching scene? Shouldn't we on the left be focused on educating people against doing actual physical racist crimes and not on censoring thoughts? IMO this only makes legitimate anti racist work look bad.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
See also Red Herring.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Basically the law states that saying you don't like people of a certain racial group is lawful, but that calling on paticular racial group to be subject to harm is not. But in the case of this particular individual it was an instance of calling for harm to a set of specific individuals,
which goes beyond a general incitement.
The law in the USA certainly does not protect threats of harm in speech from one individual to another (It counts as a "terroristic threat" and is
illegal). I am not clear if the law in the USA does or does not protect calling for harm to be done to a particular individual, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
I fully believe that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust. However it seems that a lot of people want to deny genocide occurred under Communist rule. When you take both the actions of the Communists and the actions of the National Socialists into perspective, you come to the realization that the type of government not the beliefs of the government are responsible. Socialism is the belief that everyone would live in an egalitarian and peaceful world if there were not a small group of people who were conspiring to keep control. The Nazis believed that it was a race who were responsible and most Socialists are racially neutral. But the results are the same.
You can't ban Socialist speech. If someone wants universal health care or the right to form a union, you can't throw them in jail. Yet we all have to acknowledge that if Socialists were to gain absolute power, they are capable of genocide. Just as a racist with absolute power would be capable of genocide. The key is to prevent anyone from gaining absolute power.
Genocide requires that a government has complete control. It requires that it cannot be stopped by courts, demonstrations or free public speech. One of the key elements of any totalitarian society is the idea that no one can speak freely. All speech is government approved. To have free speech in a society is to undermine totalitarianism.
Maybe you're not aware, but there is no such thing as a country named Europe. Talking about "free speech in Europe" is like talking about "free speech in Asia" (from Iran to Japan). As for the members of the European Union, I can assure you that they all have legislation to ensure free speech.
But there is no country in the world where you have absolutely free speech. Every country has limitations in their free speech, which prohibits such things as calling your neighbour a paedophile (if he isn't), yelling "FIRE!" in a crammed theater, inciting crime, etc...
Different european countries have different tradeoffs, and USA also makes its own tradeoffs. These tradeoffs might differ in various respects (i.e. in USA you can create bestiality porn, but you can't show it on TV, and in Germany you can wear a T-shirt with arabic letters on a flight, but you can't claim to be a nazi).
Regardless of law, you can "get in trouble for written text or speech" anyway. The next time you see a big muscular guy together with a beautiful girl (even better if all of you are drunk), try to tell the girl loudly that you would like to nibble on her tits while pumping your dick up her ass. Or just publish some cartoons of Muhammed.
I heavily favor egalitarian ideals, but I'm sorry: Racism is a manner of thinking, an attitude. Tyrrany has its seeds in the idea that citizens' attitudes qualify as "problems" that the state needs to solve via criminilazition. The ideal of tolerance can be elevated in ways that are less threatening to a free society. China can call anything that glorifies democracy "incitement to violence" if you allow enough indirection in the definition of the crime.
Incitement to violence is a legitimate thing to criminalize, but the ideal of a free society isn't compatible with loose construals thereof as was done here. A necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) test for guilt on this charge should be that violence was actually incited.
All manner of horrors are committed by states in the name of "protecting the public," so we can't just say "well this instance may be a bit extreme, but we can all agree that the public needs to be protected," and by extension agree that the basic concept of outlawing hate speech is valid and only the implementation is left to quibble about. The concept is not valid, and the justifcation for it is more insidious than that which it purports to protect society from.
Pi Ran Out
What do you mean "Experienced"? The US fought in WWII right alongside the allies. The US lost more soldiers than any European country (except for Yugoslavia) during the war. It was an attack on US soil that got them into the war, and it was US bombs that ended it. And after the war was over, it was US dollars that funded the Marshall Plan to rebuild the devastated parts of Europe. So just because the US didn't breed the dictator on its soil, don't say that the US didn't experience him or learn from the catastrophe. The whole fucking world experienced Hitler, including the US - Don't Forget It.
Exactly. If you don't want contact with racial abuse, you shouldn't browse sites that you consider racist. Words that may sound reasonable to some people will sound hateful to others. The problem with all "hate speech" laws is where to draw the line. Would you call Josef Ratzinger, a.k.a. "Benedict XVI", a racist? Many people in the Middle East would.
OTOH, if there exists a critical mass of racists in a society, then the problem is real and it's a problem of the *community*, not of a dissenting voice. Racism is not a problem if there are only a few maladjusted people who are racists.
Unfortunately, it's never the big leaders, the ones who have a real following, the Ratzingers and Ahmadinejads, who get jailed for "hate speech". Get a dozen followers and you'll go to jail, get a dozen million followers and you can say anything at all. The true crime is never "hate" speech, it's *minority* speech.
Just FYI - the legal definitions for assault and battery (together or seperate) vary widely between jurisdictions (different states, US Federal and of other nations). It's amazing how some places use a legal definition that does not make sense to the layman (or Webster for that matter) who thinks they understand what "assault" means.
No flame, just pointing out that what we think of common law may be drastically different where the crime took place, and probably not make sense in the context we are used to...
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
For example I don't think that "overrated" gets meta modded. At least I don't recall seeing it in there. That also, perhaps not coincidentally, is what my posts tend to get moderated most often when they go against the groupthink on Slashdot. I like Windows so I make posts that are unpopular from time to time. So I'll find a post getting moderated up insightful or informative, and down as overrated. Only happens to the posts that go against the groupthink, when I make one propping up OSS, or some that simply deals with another topic I never find it happening.
Basically people are modding it down since they disagree with what I'm saying, and I don't think meta moderation catches them.
Even if it does, that's no guarantee, again because of the whole groupthink thing. If a bunch of metamods decide that they don't like what I said and give props to the overrated mod then nothing happens (supposing it even shows up).
The system isn't bad, but it still has the problem that the quality of moderators is checked by other moderators.
Well, the obvious difference in this case and Ratzinger's is the forum, or the function of the expression. Ratzinger wasn't speaking to Muslims to hurt them, he was speaking to a different group of people, and clearly quoting as an example (here's a translated excerpt). When a bunch of Muslims are offended by it, it's because they are manipulated, not because the Pope himself hurled abuse at them.
I agree with you that there is a problem to where to put the line as to what can be said, and that's why I don't want a semantic limit to freedom of speech. I want to consider it functionally: You should be free to express any idea you want to, but not to harm people (you already have that 'shouting fire in the theater' rule). As someone who's taken his nick from South Park, I obviously don't consider this line as where something is merely offensive.
What a society deems acceptable, or what it considers an individual's fundamental right, is based on it's culture and historic experience.
You have to understand that this concept is very hard for Americans to wrap their head around. Americans tend to think in absolutes. It stems from our deeply religious past but also that our founding fathers believed in "natural rights"; there are certain "inalienable" rights that exist independent of our human institutions. This belief motivated the framers of our Constitution to codify these rights in the Bill of Rights.
So when you say something like "well it's up to society to determine what are rights and what should be prohibited" simply does not compute to most Americans. Our rights are our rights by some "divine right" and not to be determined by the whims of society.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
You have to understand that this concept is very hard for Americans to wrap their head around. Americans tend to think in absolutes. It stems from our deeply religious past but also that our founding fathers believed in "natural rights"; there are certain "inalienable" rights that exist independent of our human institutions. This belief motivated the framers of our Constitution to codify these rights in the Bill of Rights.
I don't think we really see it that differently in Europe. It's just that where these rights conflict, like here Freedom of Speech and Human Dignity or the Right to Live, the priorities are different in some rare cases ("Hate Speech" really is the only one I can think of).
So when you say something like "well it's up to society to determine what are rights and what should be prohibited" simply does not compute to most Americans. Our rights are our rights by some "divine right" and not to be determined by the whims of society.
But it seems like society does that all the time. I'd say that with Sex and Drugs, you're generally better off in Europe. In Germany we don't have a general speed limit. We're allowed beer at 16. You can say swear words and show nudity on TV. There are several parties you can vote for to represent you in parliament...
From an outside perspective, it seems there are parts of US society which have a huge influence on what must be considered, if not illegal, then at least political or commercial suicide.
Anyway, according to the statistics I found on Wikipedia (yes I know, I'm lazy), the US lost 407,300 soldiers during the entire war while Yugoslavia lost 446,000 soldiers. However, I think it's interesting that you didn't mention the numbers for any of the other allied countries, especially considering that the US population is a lot higher than that of your average european country.
Anyway, here are some of the numbers:
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
No, laws against hate speech increase and protect hate.
If hateful speech is allowed:
1. I can say things to counter hate speech.
2. I can know who is hateful, and so I can be prepared if I suspect they may cause trouble.
3. I can get an understanding of how wide spread a problem is.
4. Hate speech isn't the forbidden fruit. When alchohol was made illegal in the U.S. in the 1920s, alcohol consumption actually increased, because it became "cool" and "dangerous" to break the law against alcohol.
5. People who are innocent of hate speech, will not be harrased by being accused of hate speech.
6. It will be harder for the government to expand hate-speech censorship to other non-hate forms of speech.
This is a copy of a post I made some time ago, but still is worth mentionning because it directly relates to free speech, of which, you will notice, I am a stark proponent in the finest (cough) libertarian sense :
;-)
Well, this may be a bit off topic, but what the heck. I've just been out with some friends, and, as always when we get moderately drunk, we talked about politics, religion, philosophy etc. (when we are real drunk or when no babes are present, we usually talk about sex
Well, anyhow, being all european, and all friends (birds of a feather) we fully agreed on a lot of topics. Israel, Iraq, USA, etc...opinions didn't differ much there. But then it came to a typical european concept of free speech, which, I presume, may strike USA-citizens as a bit weird. While, seen at large, we have the same concept of free speech as in the USA, this opinion, curiously, always seem to shift to a more restricted idea of free speech when it concerns things as racism. In this respect (one of the few, I might add), I think the usa concept of it is much more honest and fair. This has undoubtably to do with our historic heritage, notably WWII.
I was argumenting that revisionistic books, as an expression of an opinion, should be allowed. Thus, not agreeing with the law(s) in most euro-countries, where such books are forbidden. To my astonishment, many of my friends agreed with this censorship, however. This is something I do not understand; you CAN NOT claim to be for free speech and expression of opinion, and then say "exept when it's *that* opinion". Allowing free speech only if you agree with it, but forbid it when you totally disagree with it, is not allowing free speech at all. I've tried to argument it, but it just didn't seem to get through to them; they started with the premise that it's wrong, and therefor it should be forbidden, whatever. The fact that this leads to hypocrytical contradictions was something they ignored too. One said: 'it's a fact, and thus it shouldn't be disputed' another said 'it hurts the jews'...but, are that, on itself, enough reasons to forbid an opinion? Is there a 'fact' so absolute, it can't be disputed? Can't anyone feel hurt be an opinion of another dude, and should we thus, forbid everything that someone claims is hurting their feelings?
These arguments do not make any sense, and what's more, to forbid an opinion is EXACTLY what ultra-right wing or despotic governments would do with the opinions that my friends (and I myself) hold dear; that of being non-racist, etc. The difference is, they start with the presumtion that they (the idea they have about it) are right, and thus oposing views can be forbidden, while I think people are allowed to have racist opinions, even when I totally disagree with them... After all, that is EXACTLY what a dictator (or ultra-right-winged-government) would do, if he ever got the power: claim something is a 'fact' and forbid oposing views. The REAL difference, thus, between a democracy and a dictatorship is that that the one alows (or should allow) diffirent opinions, while the other does not. Thus, in conclusion, this is a treat, not of democraccy, but of a dictatorship, and unworthy to be used in a democracy, IMHO. It also shows that laws are not always justified, and, again IMHO, should not ALWAYS be regarded as an absolutism, something that should be followed blindly. (Of course, it happens to be my opinion that revisionists are telling crap too, but the point is I think they have a right to express that opinion).
I got a bit worked up about it, really, because, after all, it restricts other people, because of the mere opinion of others, who think they have the right to forbid it (and have the power - which is the dangerous part, because; what if the power shifts?). Why am I writing all this? Well, because it made it clear to me again, why I'm doing all this trouble for a project such as Freenet. Sometimes, with all the tech babble and the problems and all that, I ask myself why I'm doing all this. And I gues
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Well, you do live in the UK, so there's a chance you'll get a TV in your cell and mabie tea and coffee making facilities if youre really good.
With exemption for the smaller local fish, such as mayors, etc, I - nor anyone in my social circle - have never personally had dinner with, shook hands with, met, or otherwise associated with somebody whom is or has been in the upper balances of government. Moreover, if I had, said person would be very unlikely to have had any time for me.
Why? Because I'm not rich, famous, influential. I am a normal citizen, possibly about average financially for my age, but by no means wealthy nor powerful. Don't kid yourself that I am other common folk are on the same scale as most politicians in this manner, as most come from wealthy or otherwise heavily influencial and/or powerful families.
The last time I heard of a more common man in government in this continent, it was after the people rose up and overthrew the existing government.
As for making an example of somebody, believe it or not but that is part of what the criminal system does. Not everyone gets a speeding ticket, not everyone gets a prison sentence, but the possibility that one might is supposed to be part of the dissuasive factor in the system. No, jailtime might not make this individual a better person, in fact I'd side with "probably won't", but it may dissuade others with similar notions.
Britain's got a serious problem with Muslim whack jobs trying to take over the country.
Only according to white-supremacist whack-jobs.
Most of the Muslims I've known have just wanted to keep their heads down, work hard, and contribute to our society as much as they can without being targeted by racist mobs. If any of them are planning to lead a bloody jihad across the nation, they haven't shown much inclination yet.
If they applied that standard to everyine, all the "kill the infidel" crap that gets posted to UK Muslim web sites would be prosecuted too.
Uh, Abu Hamza got 7 years, remember? Radical Muslims are being prosecuted too. Hate speech is illegal regardless of what community you belong to, and Muslims aren't getting special treatment, whatever the racists might desire.
As for the smug Americans sneering that we don't have proper freedom because we have chosen to outlaw certain forms of speech, I'll accept criticism on issues of freedom from Americans when they clean up their own act. Is three years in jail for hate speech really worse than life in jail for petty theft?