
Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech - vonmoltke
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_print.html
======
javajosh
Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam
scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a
certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these
people.

The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing
blasphemy, _violent reprisals work_.

And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.
There is a terrible slippery slope here, not only in encouraging islamists to
demand more from us (what's next? threatening farmers who sell pork?) but also
to send a message to other put-upon groups that they can demand the same thing
- if they want it badly enough.

Yes, I wish that people would grow a spine and stop worrying about getting
killed for hurting someone's feelings. But when I wonder whether I'd be
willing to take that risk, the answer is no.

~~~
w1ntermute
> Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass
> laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking
> violence out of these people.

This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root
cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the
world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. What
sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't
have the money or power to do anything to the West.

If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit
immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force
assimilation. The second thing to do is to invest as much money as possible
into developing domestic energy sources, as well as alternatives to crude oil.
The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs
will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no
real power.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"If you want to fight militant Islam, the first thing to do is to limit
> immigration from those countries and spread the immigrants out to force
> assimilation."_

It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in
order to shut down the KKK.

The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that it
really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a _lot_ of baby for very little
bath water.

I'm not sure if your comment is meant to be hand-waving theorizing-out-loud or
if you're actually serious - if you're serious, I'd hold your post up as one
of the reasons why people despise America so much. You paint with a broad
brush, advocate irrational fear-based decision making not supported by your
own numbers, and demonstrate a tremendous amount of racial and cultural
ignorance (desert nomads? seriously?)

[edit] I've noticed that all of the posts here pointing out the racism in
w1ntermute's post are getting downvoted. Normally I don't point out downvotes,
but this in particular seems especially cowardly. Would the responsible party
please get out from under that rock and explain why you feel the need to,
without justification, silence everyone who has expressed this?

~~~
w1ntermute
> It would work, but is not very different from banning all white people in
> order to shut down the KKK.

There's a big difference in that those white people are already in America,
and getting rid of them would be impossible. Note that I'm talking about
implementing stricter immigration policies _going forward_ , not getting rid
of people who are already here.

> The proportion of Arabs to radical Islamic fundamentalists is so small that
> it really, really wouldn't make sense. That's a lot of baby for very little
> bath water.

To be honest, this whole Muslim immigration issue is more applicable to Europe
than it is to America. America has (fortunately) maintained much stricter
immigration policies than much of Europe, and the latter has consequently
suffered from large swathes of Arab/Muslim immigrants failing to properly
integrate into mainstream society. I'd say America has done quite well in
comparison when it comes to assimilating Arab immigrants (although it has
failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic and African
Americans).

~~~
potatolicious
> _"(although it has failed quite miserably so far when it comes to Hispanic
> and African Americans)."_

I wouldn't exactly describe African Americans as _immigrants_ per se... It
seems to imply a level of volunteerism that simply wasn't there.

Anyways, that's a nitpick.

> _"Note that I'm talking about implementing stricter immigration policies
> going forward, not getting rid of people who are already here."_

Right, but how do you know there aren't any bad apples in the people who are
already here?

Also bear in mind that of all Muslim terrorists who have committed an act of
terrorism on American soil, many were _visitors_ to the US, not immigrants. Do
you believe we should also restrict Muslim _visitation_ of the USA?

How many _more_ extremists do you think we will create within the existing
Muslim population if we essentially had a big "Muslims go home" sign at every
border checkpoint? What would it to do in terms of our desire to assimilate
these immigrants?

Your idea is fun to think about, but IMO it's not realistic. There are too
many moving pieces for "no more Muslims in the US" to be a realistic policy
choice.

Not to mention the costs would be rather high. Go to any of the top US schools
and look at both the grad student and professor rosters, count the people of
Middle Eastern decent or of Muslim faith. These are all _huge_ wins for
American society - both in talent addition and talent denial to rival regimes.
Do you _really_ want all of these people to, say, go work for the Chinese? Or
Iran?

US hegemony is ensured in _large_ (and put large in big screaming rainbow
marquee letters) part by talent acquisition. We took much of Europe's best
scientific talent after WW2, and we continued mopping up all the smartest and
most talented people from all over the globe - Japan, China, India, the whole
Eastern Bloc, and beyond. The US's lead over everyone else is economic and
technological - leaving a whole swathe of educated immigrants on the table
seems to go very firmly against this model. Slamming the door shut on
immigration would be like starving yourself so you don't have to poop - it
would work, but _why_?

~~~
white_devil
Europe certainly does have a problem with Muslim immigration.

We've been _tolerating_ and understanding the _fuck_ out of them too, but that
doesn't seem to have helped at all. They're massively over-represented in
crime statistics.

There are talented people everywhere, but you won't find all that many Western
people who killed their own daughters for showing too much skin.

~~~
_delirium
I moved to Europe somewhat recently, and I haven't seen any tolerance or
understanding: people are _incredibly_ racist towards anyone with non-white
skin, and it's socially acceptable to make snide comments about race in polite
society. The U.S. (where I come from) is not exactly a pinnacle of race
relations, but I was shocked by how much worse it is in Europe. There was a
professor in my department of Bangladeshi heritage, and she got all sorts of
weird comments. And as a CS professor, she was obviously not going about
committing crimes, but rather writing research papers, but this didn't seem to
matter to people.

In Denmark, at least, there's also this inaccurate perception, like what you
mention, that immigrants are causing all the violence. But here we have
basically two main sources of violence: biker gangs, who are mostly white, and
immigrant gangs, who are mostly not. The kinds of people who vote Danske
Folkeparti and are really worried about crime never seem to mention the biker
gangs. Same in the UK: a huge amount of crime in the UK is caused by lower-
class whites, the group sometimes derogatorily termed "chavs", and overlapping
with "hooligan" culture. But you don't see the BNP complaining about them.
Why? Because that's where their own members come from.

Some of my family is Greek, and there is no real tolerance there either,
except from a smallish segment of left-wing internationalists. There are 2nd-
generation Chinese-origin Greeks who speak perfect Greek and are generally
integrated, but are still called racist names and considered "foreigners" by
the Greeks who have a very ethnic view of Greekness (the majority).

~~~
white_devil
_I moved to Europe somewhat recently, and I haven't seen any tolerance or
understanding: people are incredibly racist towards anyone with non-white
skin, and it's socially acceptable to make snide comments about race in polite
society._

Oh? At least in Finland, the situation is actually the exact opposite of that.
As far as I know, the same applies all over Scandinavia and Central Europe.

~~~
_delirium
Weirdly, I was just in Finland two weeks ago, and the first person who
randomly approached me and my Finnish friend in a bar in Turku was some drunk
guy ranting about immigrants, who wouldn't leave us alone! We thought
pretending neither of us could speak Finnish would solve the problem, but it
didn't. My friend enjoyed provoking him in English while pretending not to be
Finnish, though. They had some kind of argument about "True Finns", and about
Janne Holmén.

In Copenhagen I would say things aren't _too_ bad, but I wouldn't call it a
great degree of tolerance or understanding, more "tolerance" in the sense of
"will grit my teeth and tolerate you". Outside Copenhagen, things get
progressively worse. And the government doesn't treat the religions equally:
the Church of Scientology, of all things, got permission to build a church in
Copenhagen, but the government is still holding up construction of a mosque.

And Central Europe? It's no fun at all, and possibly physically unsafe, to be
Pakistani or black in Poland...

~~~
white_devil
You know, the word "immigrant" (="maahanmuuttaja" in Finnish) has basically
become code for " _Somali_ immigrant". If someone is complaining about
immigrants, he means Somalis, and yes, he has good reason to complain.

~~~
_delirium
From what I can find, there are very few Somali immigrants in Finland.
Approximately 10,000, so about 0.2% of the population. How is this a problem?

In addition, the statistics indicate that Somalis are crime victims much more
often than they're perpetrators, mostly due to the high prevalence of hate
crimes perpetrated by young white men. See:
[http://www.poliisiammattikorkeakoulu.fi/poliisi/poliisioppil...](http://www.poliisiammattikorkeakoulu.fi/poliisi/poliisioppilaitos/home.nsf/files/raportti_85_en/$file/raportti_85_en.pdf)

~~~
white_devil
Without reading too far into that, it looks like total bullshit. The central
theme seems to be "hate crimes".. What the fuck is a "hate crime", exactly?
Why are _Finnish_ policemen lectured about "hate crime" _in English_?

This looks like government propaganda, basically. Sure, some Finns are
genuinely racist, but the overwhelming majority of people here are _very_
tolerant and sensitive about "offending" any immigrant group (as long as
they're black, of course).

Before you shout at me for being racist, take a look at my conversation with
potatolicious: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4654794>

Quite frankly, the article you linked to looks disgusting to me. Like some
"perception shaping campaign" with the aim of sensitivizing the police force
to "hate crime".

All this hysteria about "racism", defined roughly as: "pointing out any facets
of reality that reflect negatively on any non-white (preferably black)
people", could well be meant to stifle freedom of speech. It's working too,
because most sheeple in Finland are _very strict_ about not saying anything
negative about Somalis, for example, even though there's good reason to.

------
droithomme
> The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free
> speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now
> being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority.

This is very incorrect to say it is misconstrued. In Schenck vs US, the Court
was prosecuting a _pacifist_ who distributed pamphlets protesting the
involuntary draft in World War I, arguing that forced drafts constituted
involuntary servitude and were therefore prohibited by the constitution.

The decision was an extremely bad one and the passage by Holmes was
inflammatory rhetoric since the case was clearly never about shouting fire in
a theatre, it was about peacefully and reasonably protesting unconstitutional
action by the government.

The clear and present danger test was eliminated in 1969 when the Court
established instead a "imminent lawless action" test as the line that speech
must cross. Again though, interpretation of what speech will lead to "imminent
lawless action" is not defined so this is a poor test as well. Clearly in some
cases peaceful criticism of violent religious practices, as well as harmless
cartoons that are not even disparaging have lead to imminent lawless action. A
more reasonable view would be to note that those who engage in lawless action
should be responsible for their own actions, regardless of whatever speech or
opinions they claim made them engage in criminal behavior. No one makes you
engage in criminality. It is something you choose to do.

~~~
philwelch
> The decision was an extremely bad one and the passage by Holmes was
> inflammatory rhetoric since the case was clearly never about shouting fire
> in a theatre, it was about peacefully and reasonably protesting
> unconstitutional action by the government.

It's an interesting theory that the thirteenth amendment prohibits
conscription, but it's never been upheld in court.

~~~
tomjen3
Which is the single best argument I have ever heard against the supreme court.

~~~
droithomme
The Supreme Court has not evaluated this issue. During Vietnam there were a
few cases that looked like they were going to get to the Supreme Court, and
the conscripts were released with honorable discharges in order to avoid the
court being able to rule on the cases as the issues were made moot through the
discharges.

~~~
philwelch
They did, in 1918: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Draft_Law_Cases>

~~~
droithomme
OK, thanks you are right. Interesting how they cite the 14th's change in the
concept of US citizenship to be primary over state citizenship as
strengthening this presumed right of federal conscription.

------
bobsy
What concerns me especially in Britain is the amount of times the police are
getting involved in what appear to be free speech cases.

In Britain 2 police officers were killed. The same day a guy wrote on his
t-shirt something to the effect of "kill pigs for fun hahahaah." This is a
stupid thing to do. I would have thought the police might confiscate his
t-shirt. Nope, that wouldn't have been sufficient. He got 4 months in prison.

After any major crime you hear that someone has been arrested because they
have set up a fan page or wrote some stupid comments online praising the
person who did it. I would have thought Facebook moderation would be
sufficient.

Most recently.. a girl went missing. Some muppet on Facebook wrote how he
"woke up" next to her. Not all of his comments were posted but these appear to
be on his Facebook wall. He wasn't trolling the family or abusing memorial
pages. He is now spending 3 months in prison...

You then have the frustrated traveler who said he would blow an air port "sky
high". He was arrested, found guilty and fined. It took a year or two to
finally win an appeal.

I am not defending these people. They have done stupid things. Some should be
warned by police. However, there appears to be a crackdown going on quietly if
you cause even the slightest offense. As a citizen of a western country this
worries my greatly.

~~~
cstross
The case of t-shirt guy (Barry Thew) is much worse than "4 months for wearing
an offensive t-shirt".

Turns out he has a history.

a) He's a psychiatric patient, on anti-psychotic meds with a history of
compulsory in-patient detention,

b) His son died in police custody 3 years ago.

He also has a series of criminal convictions, most recently for cultivating
cannabis, but I'd like to note that there's a _really strong_ association
between schizophrenia and self-medication with cannabis. (I'm told -- this is
purely anecdotal, but comes first hand from a dignosed schizophrenic -- that
it makes the voices shut up for a while.)

The judge tossed out the mental health argument advanced by the defense.
Moreover this case was a _public order_ case, a minor one, but came up before
a judge in a crown court (usually the province of serious offenses such as
robbery and murder), who imposed a much heavier sentence than would normally
be the case for a public order conviction. (Public order offenses are
frequently dealt with by a spot fine or, at worst, brought up before a
magistrate who has much more limited sentencing powers. It may be that Threw's
status -- he was also found to be in breach of a probation order because he
was found to be in possession of cannabis -- accounts for that, but: WTF? Four
months for possession of cannabis, and another four months for wearing a loud
t-shirt in a built-up area? What are we coming to?)

Thew is pretty obviously a petty criminal and what, on the internet, we'd term
a troll. But his treatment by the state in this case is odious and heavy-
handed, and raises disturbing implications.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-
jail...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jailed-
tshirt-police)

~~~
Joeboy
> His son died in police custody 3 years ago

I keep reading this, but I haven't yet seen a better citation than "my mates
in Manchester say it's true".

~~~
illuminate
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-
jail...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jailed-
tshirt-police)

"Stuart Duke, defending, said Thew had been an inpatient at a mental health
unit and was still on anti-psychotic medicine, but the judge replied mental
health was "not a factor".

He said Thew had a longstanding dispute with Greater Manchester police over
the death of his son three years ago"

~~~
Joeboy
I've seen that, and other similar vague wordings, but I haven't seen anything
trustworthy that said why.

~~~
illuminate
It's not necessarily suspicious that his local media does not care enough to
investigate claims of police misconduct and interview the man's family.

[http://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/one-
less-p...](http://nothingiseverlost.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/one-less-pig-
perfect-justice-grieving-father-jailed-for-t-shirt/)

------
DanielBMarkham
99.99% of disgusting hateful speech is just that: disgusting hateful speech.

The other .01% is the only hope we have as a species of honestly addressing
our situation and problems and adapting and moving forward. The mob cannot
tell the difference between these two groups. In fact, unless you are from the
future looking back, nobody can. People who change society for the better
through their speech are almost universally hated. At first.

This isn't a nice-to-have feature of modern life. This is critical stuff. To
see Ban Ki-moon say “when some people use this freedom of expression to
provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be
protected.”? A little bit of us all die.

We as a secular free society _must_ protect people humiliating others, their
beliefs and values, through speech. It's the price we paid to get to where we
are -- thousands of unpopular folks yelling in the wilderness about how we are
stupid, wrong, immoral and how we should improve ourselves. It's much to steep
of a price, too much depends on it, for us to abandon it now.

~~~
aristidb
Publicly, that is. In a private forum like Hacker News, exclusion of
disgusting hateful speech is legitimate and even necessary for the survival of
the community - or people would leave because the "trolls" have taken over.

~~~
danielweber
I agree that HN can operate how it wishes.

I'm not sure that barring disgusting speech is "necessary," if only because
"necessary" can be such a loaded word.

reddit, for example, seems to have a principle of free speech, where there
only a very specific things you are not allowed to say board-wide. So there is
a fair amount of disgusting speech there. It seems to work for them --
although I have been slowly disengaging from it over the past year or two, and
maybe that's part of the reason.

~~~
aristidb
Don't some individual subreddits moderate fairly heavily? And the
upvoting/downvoting also has the effect of hiding disliked speech.

~~~
danielweber
Yes, they do, and the admins support lots of freedom and experimentation for
the subreddit moderation policies. (Although there are "default" subreddits
that are a little weird.)

The sitewide bans, to my recollection, are of only two things (besides that
which is illegal): sexualized pictures of children, and doxxing.

------
linuxhansl
"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to
unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever
is might be).

If people would be sufficiently secure about their religious views any
criticism would just be ignored and people would go on about their business.

(Well, the truth is that people are angry to begin with, and religion is just
a nice excuse to vent this anger).

The other part that baffles me are "hate crimes". That word makes no sense.
What the heck is a "hate crime"? Are there violent non-hate crimes?

~~~
tsotha
>"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to
unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever
is might be).

You don't get it because you're not a devout Muslim of one of the more violent
sects, and this is a pretty common problem with people in the West. There's no
point in trying to divine motivations in this particular area without
understanding the _Weltanschauung_.

It's not about insecurity. They believe God wants them to punish (with death)
people who insult Him.

~~~
rglovejoy
It still doesn't make any sense. If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful
creator of the Universe, can't He take care of Himself? After all, back in the
Bible days, God was taking out His vengeance on people who got on His bad side
all the time.

~~~
jlgreco
This is _hardly_ the first case of Abrahamic religions not making sense. If
you going in expecting self-consistency and logic, you are going to have a bad
time...

Anyway, I don't think the GP is entirely correct. Sure, perhaps to a certain
extent religious people react negatively to the blasphemy of outsiders because
it is the dogma of their religion to do so. I think the greater cause however
is that all people, _even religious people_ , tend to be rather rational. When
people hear others poking fun of their religion they become upset, not because
they "know" they are right (and most would say without hesitation that they
do), but because somewhere deep down inside a part of them considers the
possibility that the blasphemer just might be right. Blasphemy tickles those
deep-seated insecurities. As rational as people are, they _really_ don't like
being wrong and made to look a fool.

~~~
tsotha
I still think you're projecting your cultural context onto people with a
different culture. If it was all about insecurity they'd react the way
Christians reacted to "Piss Christ". But they don't, do they?

------
yew
I'm always amused by the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument, mostly because
most of the people who use it don't seem to know that it originated as an
analogy justifying the prosecution of protesting the draft during World War I.

War protests obvious aren't of any real value, after all. They just endanger
the public . . .

~~~
jamesaguilar
An analogy doesn't automatically become bad just because it was once used to
support a bad policy. :)

~~~
yew
It does become suspect if the underlying logic is the same, though. I might
call "clear and present danger" _ethically_ problematic, but it was hardly
unjustified.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Not really. I could say that talking about kittens is like yelling fire in a
crowded theater. The fire-in-a-crowded-theater argument is not diminished
because I did a bad job of lining up reality with the analogy. The problem
comes in when people are allowed to say, X is like ..., without X actually
being like that.

~~~
yew
I doubt the general public and the Supreme Court would accept your logic for a
span of almost fifty years, whereas they don't seem to have had much of a
problem with Justice Holmes'. I think that tells us quite a lot about how
human psychology tends to work in these cases, though your opinion may differ.
I suspect time will tell which of us is the more accurate, though I wish it
wouldn't.

------
snogglethorpe
Is this stuff actually anything new? It seems like free-speech has been under
constant assault as long as such rights have been recognized.

The precise details shift around a bit, but free speech has always been
something that has to be actively maintained: formal guarantees aren't—and I
think have never been—sufficient. I don't think there's ever been a time when
you could just sit back and enjoy it...

[The reason I ask is because the article seems to written to give the
impression that is some sort of worrying new development...]

~~~
lukifer
These assaults are absolutely not new, but from my limited vantage point,
previous assaults have mostly revolved around vulgarity. The new wave seems to
revolve around "hate", which is worrisome given how subjective and slippery
the term is. The described tale of "Zombie Muhammed" is a perfect example: a
light-hearted joke to one person is a vicious act of "hate" to another.

Protecting people's feelings should not be the role of the state.

~~~
_delirium
I don't think that category is that new either, though it's hard to say if
it's increasing in frequency. One very traditional category is desecration of
cherished symbols: blasphemy laws are one very old example (still extant in
some of Europe), and the U.S. has had recurring debates over whether flag
burning should be outlawed, which it actually was for a time (basically the
patriotic American's version of calling for Koran-burning to be outlawed).

I do think it's true that, at least since the 1960s or so, the U.S. has
supported a basically unlimited range of political opinion (excluding the
flag-burning issue). Perhaps something of a historical anomaly, though, since
even in the U.S. that was generally not true earlier: between various sedition
acts, laws suppressing communist and anarchist publications, laws suppressing
anti-segregationist speech, etc., there have been significant restrictions on
"fringe" speech through much of US history.

------
guylhem
History is interesting sometimes.

As Chamberlain and Dalladier brilliantly showed with the Munich Agreement, it
can be a good thing to appease a potential adversary which feels wronged for
some reason by giving in to their demands and forgetting for a while about
one's law or best interests - for a "greater cause". They did in fact avoid a
war.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement>

But since the agreement was made possible by the fear of the potential
alternative outcome (failed negotiations -> risk war), which was of different
significance to the opponents (one could say, with hindsight, that one of the
negotiating parties _wanted_ an opportunity to go to war), an advantage could
be gained by the party with attached less significance to the bad outcome.

The result was in fact positive for all the negotiators : they all got what
they wanted. But the ones with an interest in a war were given the zone where
the border defenses and the banks were - even if the result was positive for
all, some gained more - and not just "more", but strategically more.

In other words, reaching an agreement failed to consider the strategic
significance of the advantage that was given away.

Slippery slope? Maybe. The real problem is not just incentivizing a very
destructive conduct, but it seems very similar - giving away one's best
defenses in exchange of a short-lived peace.

Why ? Just like a pen is mightier than a sword, free speech is the best
defense of democracy.

Why is no one interested in free speech? (in one of the posts: "I'd be willing
to take that risk, the answer is no")

It looks like a public good - one which utility is the sum of marginal
utility, with individual marginal utilities not enough to offset the cost of
this good.

That's bad.

But there's something to learn - any group that can manage to make its
adversary give them their best defense is applying a good strategy - so
threatening violence works, while giving in to the demand of bullies with
diverging interest doesn't.

(Please do not interpret this post as an endorsement of any party, faith, or
country - the strategy here is just very interesting)

------
bhangi
I feel compelled to point out that most of the examples in the article are
free speech that happens to (gratuitously in most cases) piss off the
minorities. Notable for their absence are transgressions against authorities
-- e.g. the sort of vicious recriminations against whistleblowers whose free
speech rights are for naught when they hurt the powers that be. Assange nailed
it -- free speech is tolerated only so long as it does not interfere with the
interests of the power structure. The moment it does, it will be swiftly dealt
with -- under one guise or the other.

Somewhat disappointed in this piece from Turley, who's otherwise quite
nuanced.

------
tokenadult
Given the set of tradeoffs described in the article, I'm on record supporting
free speech, period. As I wrote earlier here on HN, "The basic issue is
whether people in free countries, like most readers of Hacker News, are going
to be able to enjoy the right of free speech throughout their country, on any
subject, or whether any American or Dutch or Danish person or other person
accustomed to free speech who happens to be within reach of attack by a crazy
foreign person has to prepare for war just to continue to exercise free
speech. On my part, I'm going to continue to comment on public policy based on
verifiable facts and reason and logic, even if that seems offensive. I am not
going to shrink from saying that people in backward, poorly governed countries
that could never have invented the Internet have no right to kill and destroy
just because someone in a free country laughs or scorns at their delusions.
The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are
declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other
than blights on humankind.

"Allow me to reemphasize this point. The many participants on HN who criticize
Transportation Security Agency 'security theater' as a meaningless reduction
in the freedom of people who travel to the United States are right on the
basic point. If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because
of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won. You and I should be
able to speak our minds and express our opinions in the manner of all people
in free countries--sometimes agreeing with one another, sometimes disagreeing,
but always letting the other guy have his say. To engage in self-censorship
because of fear of violent thugs is to be defeated by the thugs."

As before, I think jerf correctly responded to this issue when he made his
comment on it last month:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4510637>

 _If I organize a riot involving thousands of people that I manage to incite
into killing people, and I claim my reason is that I heard that some guy is
Glasgow made fun of the American soccer team over beer... that guy is Glasgow
is not the real reason. It doesn't even qualify as a metaphorical fig leaf,
it's just a lie. When the excuse is this tiny, you shouldn't even give it the
time of day._

I have to agree with the submitted article that the correct policy is making
sure to protect the right of free people in free countries to speak freely
about all the issues of the day, including the harm caused to the whole world
by fanatics who burn and destroy and kill because their delusional beliefs are
offended.

~~~
jakubp
I would add that having your true/correct beliefs offended should not be
excuse for burning or destroying. I met quite some people who seem just as
offended when what is known to others as true is questioned or criticized.
It's curious that it's not really about the truthiness of the belief. It's
about responses people choose. Anger, or worse, aggressions, are rarely if
ever the right response.

------
cup
This is really interesting in light of the recent reddit fiasco involving
violentacrez and voyeuristic photos being published. I mean people were
clearly up in arms about the invasion of privacy and supported subreddits like
creepshots being banned despite the fact that they're perfectly legal. I
wonder whether these same people see the similiarity between themselves and
Muslims who want the blasphemous publication of prophets banned.

~~~
JeremyBanks
The analogy only holds if you expect Reddit to behave like an open/libre
platform. As a private organization, they have no obligation to do so. They
have very strong motivations to crack down on activity that reflects badly on
them (as these recents events threatened to), yet they do permit much more
than many organizations would.

By contrast, the government is supposed to have free speech as one of their
fundamental legal principles.

It's a poor argument to suggest that people advocating censorship on Reddit
are very similar to those advocating censorship in society at large.

~~~
clavalle
I don't think it is a weak argument at all.

Sure Reddit is a private organization but being so makes it a softer target
for censorship advocates. They can try different techniques and arguments in
that sandbox and get an amplified, but not dissimilar, return on their
actions. It can also serve as a morale booster for those groups.

As they hone their message and techniques against a large, democratic, and
heterogeneous population, they can use those same tactics in society at large
to provoke the same change in more inertial government.

------
mcantelon
The "Muslim Menace" us being used as an excuse to attack free speech just like
child porn has been used to attack privacy. News at 11.

------
dhughes
What I find chilling is in the age of the internet the comment sections on
news sites are heavily censored (e.g. CBC). Which seems to allow a strange mix
of viewpoints but what you don't see is what worries me.

As for insulting religions it's funny that most times it's religion against
religion more than non-religious again religious.

~~~
indiecore
the CBC comments section is heavily censored? Looking at it I didn't think
they even had moderators.

~~~
dhughes
They have "trusted users" who get a star beside their name, for some weird
reason you can't use arrow keys to backspace you can use backspace, plus it
takes a good minute for comments to load, comments seem to work in IE browser
only.

I know people who have tried to make a general comment and are denied but
others who make far harsher statements seem to always get them posted. It
seems not so much censoring as some weird agenda, it's bizarre. A lot of times
commenting is restricted which is too bad since I like to see what people
think of stories; pro or con.

------
mhartl
I hereby propose that the term "hate speech" be written as one word:
_hatespeech_. It's Newspeak, and we should spell it as such.

~~~
Evbn
Like email for e-mail?

------
poli_throwaway
The examples in the piece seem to me to be so colored so as to confuse the
whole issue. Actual limiting of rights occurs due to a power structure. The
right to offend an unpopular minority or foreign group is usually easy to
exercise and it doesn't take much guts to defend it. Rights are usually
curtailed by the powers that be.

The article seems to imply that a monolithic "Western World" has been a
fountain head of free expression until the problematic Muslims and a few left-
liberals came along. So Jews in the last few centuries, or blacks during Jim
Crow had wonderful free expression rights that an un-sullied European
civilization had always cherished?

Fast forwarding to this time, quite a few people are in jail within the
Western world for espousing extremely un-popular political views.

------
capex
"It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is
intolerance" Sounds like a self defeating argument.

------
niels_olson
This article reads like the middle of a European history textbook:

> such as Ireland, which in <year> criminalized the “publication or utterance
> of blasphemous matter” deemed “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to
> matters held sacred by any religion.” The Russian Duma ... proposed a law
> against “insulting religious beliefs.” Other countries allow the arrest of
> people who threaten strife by criticizing religions or religious leaders. In
> Britain, for instance, a 15-year-old girl was arrested two years <before>
> for burning a Koran.

------
netcan
There is another aspect to this. A ban on blasphemy, in a wide sense of the
world is very natural to us. We are used to living under these restrictions.
They are imposed by religion, law & taboo/culture almost everywhere including
the west.

The blatant simple versions are religious laws often absorbed into law about
denying the truth of a religion, worshiping other gods, etc. There are often
also similar restrictions on criticism/denial of monarchs. When these get
stronger and more elaborate, we tend to call these "State Religions" (eg north
korea) hinting at how closely we associate religions with blasphemy/heresy
laws.

A more modern "light" varient has cultural pressures at the core. It is
considered bad form almost everywhere to openly criticize someone's "beliefs."
Beliefs must be mutually respected. They cannot be held against someone. They
are treated as a part of one's ethnicity. As far as I can tell this has two
sources. The original religious law one (Dawkins has fascinating memetic
explanation for this) and a sort of cultural compromise reached enough times
following religious wars that it has become deeply ingrained in cultures.

We are predisposed to respecting blasphemy and heresy laws.

------
tomjen3
>I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too
young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15
years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they
took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'" \--Mike Godwin, Electronic
Frontier Foundation

I never though I would see the day when the West gave its freedom away just to
please a religious group.

------
netfire
We should be careful to not limit other rights in protecting the right of free
speech. I defend the right of people to express their opinions, views,
thoughts, etc in society, but I also believe you must have balance and allow
people to choose whether they want to listen to someone's opinion or thoughts.

It is one thing to go listen to someone from the KKK speak about their
thoughts or to read their opinions in a pamphlet or book (this type of free
speech I support), it is another to force the public to be exposed to their
hateful messaging by forcing billboard/television companies to allow their
messaging be shown in a public place.

We should support the rights of companies or individuals to censor content
they don't agree with or want to be affiliated with. Government should (at
least in some cases) be able to limit certain types of speech where the public
would be forced to see something they don't want themselves (or their
children) to be subjected to. Government should be less involved with
censoring types of speech that someone chooses to be exposed to.

What are your thoughts? How do we find the right balance with free speech and
other rights?

~~~
tomjen3
The problem with the second part of your argument is that you force me to pay,
through my taxes, to a subway and then prevent me from posting things I want
to say (but allow the other guy, because all he wants to do is sell soap).

By obviously you should have the right to not listen to a particular radio or
tv show or not to look at a particular billboard. And yes, Fox News shouldn't
have to argue points they don't want to.

But protecting you from seeing something you don't want to see? I don't want
to see niggers, should the government lock them up?

~~~
netfire
I would prefer that the government not sell ad space at all. (The reason a
subway should be built is to transport people from one place to another,
that's what you are paying taxes for). The main point I was trying to make is
that we should consider other rights when defending free speech (or other
rights, including not being exposed to things you don't want yourselves, or
your children to be exposed to). Defending almost any right to an absolute
extreme produces consequences that are harmful to individuals and society (as
your example illustrates).

------
strictfp
The problem is not rooted in governments. It is rooted in the Fatwa culture,
which streches across national borders. Many goverments try to protect
targeted people, with limited success and high consequences for the target
individual. I find it offending that we let ourselves be supressed like this.
But it is a sort of terrorist scare tactic which we sadly seem to be very
vulnerable to.

------
ommunist
I think it is not real limitation per se. OK, there are real limitations, like
the BBC censorship of comments on their website (they call it moderation). But
mostly it is orwellian double-thinking occupying the mind of the average
Westerner. Examples? Even after this photo - [http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-
raw-images/msss/00065/mhli/0065...](http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-
images/msss/00065/mhli/0065MH0055000002R0_DXXX.jpg) a rare Westerner will
allow himself to think there is no rover on Mars. It is self-censorship at
almost pre-conscious level what horrifies me in the Western world.

------
smutticus
The author fails to mention that different countries in the west have vastly
different free speech laws. He then goes on to use examples from multiple
countries to prove his 4 main points.

Am I expected to believe that the UK and the USA have the same free speech
laws? UK libel law, which he doesn't even bring up, is regularly used to
restrict free speech. German laws against denying the holocaust, which he
never brings up, restrict free speech.

I fail to see this imminent common threat facing western free speech through
his omissions and forced equating of examples from multiple jurisdictions.

------
PaulHoule
Well, I'd say that one of the reasons why muslims get along so well in in the
U.S. is we have separation of church and state (which plays into free speech)

Christians can't use the state in the U.S. to harass agnostics, athiests,
pagans, jews, muslims, buddists, whatever. If our government could stop people
from spreading hateful lies about islam, we'd have Christians saying that you
can't have a Koran or atheists saying that it's blasphemy to even say there is
a God.

You can't say our American Way is the best of all possible worlds, but you can
say that it's the least worst.

------
ominds
Many sites speak against Islam and its prophet, many of them speak against the
Koran and its teachings. No demonstrations have gone all out against them.
They hold a POV that is not acceptable to Muslims, but that's fine. Many of
them even attempt to do research about the topic they talk about to prove
their POVs. The question is, would you consider someone who creates a film
portraying Jesus or Mohammad as a child molester or as a fraud as someone
practicing free speech? I think there is quite a difference between the two.

~~~
tomjen3
With no hesitation, yes.

And I would expect everybody else to do the same.

------
Tycho
Of course it is. The political systems of the West lack integrity: they're not
going to uphold general principles in the face of emotionally charged
specifics. They merely react on a pragmatic basis depending on how various
rights groups and media commentators and public opinions change.

Btw, an easy way to overcome these sorts of laws would be if everyone just
started posting the supposedly forbidden statement on twitter (and elsewhere).
They only have the resources to suppress a few disparate voices.

------
duedl0r
this would be true if "western world" == USA. But it isn't. It's a subset of
it, and certainly not true for all the western countries.

~~~
ommunist
You mean Sweden has free speech? Or Norway? I doubt you can have free speech
even in Liechtenstein. You can only express yourself "freely" until you are
not touching the real chaps with real interests. Look at Assange's story.

------
danielweber
Point of order: Nakoula, the filmmaker, was arrested for parole violations.
His previous crimes included using fraud and multiple identities to raise
money over the Internet, so it's not unreasonable that he should be arrested
when he's released a video on the Internet under an alias and asking for money
to continue his work.

------
mad44
Here, another perspective (from the muslim world) on free speech. Appeared in
Foreign Policy magazine. Makes good points.

[http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/18/globalizat...](http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/18/globalization_and_its_discontents)

------
beaker52
The solution is quite simple to achieve individually, but near impossible to
get everyone to achieve at once.

Stop being insulted. Stop being offended. Let things go. Life is too short for
it.

If you're not offended, it doesn't matter what people say. Then we can all say
what we like and no-one has to worry.

~~~
randomchars
This. Unfortunately most of the people who are outraged are not easy to reason
with, so this doesn't work.

------
janeesah
The thing is, violence is not the correct response to hateful or derogatory
speech. It's much more effective to use positive actions to prove the speech
wrong; people don't respond well to losing verbal arguments, but no one can
argue with results from positive actions.

------
ommunist
What the author forgot to say is that censorship in mainstream media is not a
cage. Its a skeleton.

------
nnq
..."zombie Muhammed"! ...I REALLY wanna see a photo of that, so if anyone has
it PLEASE post it anywhere online!

(though, to be fair, resurrection was Jesus' thing, so he would go better with
the zombie thing, and maybe the costumed guy got what he deserved for mixing
things up...)

~~~
nnq
...found it actually
([http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xULoUXkBia0/T0_8AxXVVGI/AAAAAAAACH...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xULoUXkBia0/T0_8AxXVVGI/AAAAAAAACH0/iYX7EBsIrqQ/s1600/mohammad-
zombie.jpg)) ...though still, he should've really changed the headwear and
colors and made it a Jesus zombie :P

------
mmariani
I'd better say this while I still can.

Government is broken.

~~~
ommunist
Can we fix it?

~~~
sparkie
Yes. Stop paying them.

~~~
ommunist
Thoreau did and was put in jail for stopping such payments. However its the
21st century now. I propose a little checkbox to check where do I want my
taxes to go. As a matter of free expression of my taxpayers will.

------
guard-of-terra
In any war between the religious man and the atheist, support the atheist.

~~~
ommunist
Means, you will support war. My suggestion - pacify both.

~~~
mylittlepony
Everyone should chill out and have a beer by the beach. Unless you are in the
US, where that's illegal.

~~~
Hannan
This varies considerably. I can assure you as a USian that I regularly chill
out and have a beer by the beach. :)

Though we do also have "family friendly" beaches where you can only have
alcohol in areas _around_ the beach, not on the beach itself.

------
tryitnow
This article displays a rather poor understanding of free speech.

First, it sets up a false dichotomy between an idealized "free speech" past
and a present where free speech is in danger. Where's the evidence for this?
The US has always had an uneasy relationship with "free speech." I don't
believe that the First Amendment was ever interpreted as liberally as this
author seems to think.

Any article talking about free speech's decline in the US should refer to the
two key Supreme Court cases: Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Seriously, it takes like less than 5 minutes to look these up on wikipedia and
you can already see that the First Amendment has always been interpreted
pretty conservatively. Facts are our friends, I wish this author would have
provided some citations and historical context.

As for countries other than the US? Are you kidding me? Europe has always had
restrictions even on political speech. There's no limiting of free speech that
is new here. Sure the author cites some "new" laws but these laws reflect the
spirit of the old laws. No news here people.

Now I'll address the author's subcategories where he believe free speech is
being eroded:

Blasphemy: This is the only area in the article where the author has a bit of
a point. The presence of relatively large populations willing to riot over
perceived insults to their religion (i.e. Muslims) is sort of new in Western
Europe and leaders are figuring out how to deal with it. However, I don't see
anybody rushing out to ban the Satanic Verses. Most leaders are concerned
about people doing silly things like dressing up as zombie Muhammed in public.
A key criterion here is the possibility of inciting public violence. Rarely do
works of literary or artistic merit have this effect, so restrictions are
mostly directed towards people doing insulting things in public. Think of
going into a bar and insulting the biggest, dumbest looking guy there. Yes,
you should have the right to do that, but ask any prosecutor how much sympathy
a judge is going to have for your case. There's nothing new here. Personally,
I wish our laws allowed more expressions of insulting speech. I actually agree
with the author on that point - but the author undermines his case by
pretending that we're somehow backsliding. We're not, this has always been the
standard.

BTW, I write this as an atheist who plenty of Muslims would love to see
butchered. However, we need to remember that much of the censorship going on
around this issue is self-censorship. The state censorship he cites is really
nothing new - in France it's just an extension of how they deal with Nazis and
others. I disagree with French laws on this, but again, there's nothing new
here. The author is being alarmist.

Hate crimes The reason for hate crime laws is that a hate crime is more than
just a crime between two people. It's something that has the potential to
incite group versus group violence. There's a qualitative difference in an act
that's meant to intimidate a a single individual and one meant to intimidate a
specific group. When acts directed specifically at a group are committed
everyone in that group feels a bit of the effect of the act, hence the
punishment should be greater. Additionally, there are some hate criminals who
don't mind getting punished just for committing an act against an individual
because their real goal is intimidating an entire group.

Speech is discriminatory Ummm, discrimination on the basis of suspect and
quasi-suspect categories has been illegal in many circumstances for some time
now. Putting up a sign that says "Coloreds not welcome" at your establishment
is pretty much illegal and has been even though it's a restriction on
"speech." This is based on the fact that you're operating a public
establishment and therefore derive gains from being part of the broader
society. With those gains come responsibilities. If you and your buddies don't
want to hang around blacks when you BBQ in your backyard you're still free to
discriminate because you're not running a public establishment in that
context. The example cited in the article comes from a comedy club, a public
establishment. Again, nothing new here.

Speech is Deceitful If you lie and get a benefit from it, then yes, you should
be prosecuted. I don't know why the author views this as a problem. The
example he cites from France is not an outlier in French history - it's an
extension of France's rather stringent anti-hate laws. Laws I disagree with
just like the author does, but again, there's nothing new here.

One of the reasons I really don't like this article is because I kind of agree
with the author around loosening free speech standards, but he just does an
awful and alarmist job of conveying his point. He is bound to turn off anyone
who has any grasp of the history and nuance around the subject. I feel like a
cause I support has been set back by this author's very poor argumentation
skills.

This article reminds us that opinion column writers were the original trolls
long before the Internet ever existed.

tl:dr: The author does not provide any convincing evidence that the "West is
limiting Free Speech" in any new way.

------
camus
Except free speech only exists in US, doesnt exist in any Europe country for
instance. In US you can say almost anything you want about anything. Not the
case in Uk or France. If you deny holocaust in France for instance , you're
going to be prosecuted. So while the article is interesting it only applies to
USA.

~~~
slowpoke
It's a bit stretched to assert that European countries don't have Free Speech.
Germany, for instance, grants Freedom of Expression in its "Grundgesetz" (its
fundamental law), and states that "there is no censorship", though there may
be exceptions as defined by the law. For example, it's illegal in Germany to
slander or insult someone, or to deny the Holocaust.

I don't agree especially with the latter. It's ridiculous to assert the
Holocaust didn't happen - I've visited the remains of the Dachau Concentration
Camp, and I won't ever forget that place in my life - but it's equally
ridiculous to disallow questioning it. I just pity the people who do it.

But again, it's not exactly right to say that Free Speech doesn't exist here
in Europe. I'd say it's mostly the same situation as in the US - it's under
attack and we, as the united inhabitants of this planet, need to stand up and
fight back where-ever possible. Stop thinking in countries. Start thinking as
a part of humanity as a whole.

