Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Radio Netherlands reports:
The Dutch Public Prosecutor's Office has announced that the cartoonist who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot was arrested for publishing 'insulting cartoons'.The cartoonist will not reveal his real name out of fear that Islamic extremists will seek revenge for the cartoons, many of which make fun of the Muslim religion.
It is extremely unusual for a Dutch artist to be arrested for his works. Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin says he does not believe the case has anything to do with suppressing free expression.
Of course you don't, you're a bureaucrat making a power grab. Why would you admit that you're suppressing free expression? Of course, your denials don't change reality even the tiniest little bit: you are suppressing free expression whether you admit it or not. And here's the rationale for it, from a statement released by the prosecutor's office:
"The investigation has revealed that a number of cartoons published on the internet were, according to our office, insulting to Muslims and to people of colour. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor's Office believes the cartoons could inspire hatred."
No kidding. Can you even begin to imagine how broad the net can get if the government decides to ban all speech that "could inspire hatred"? Any harsh criticism of anyone for any reason "could inspire hatred." A minister saying that homosexuality is a sin could inspire hatred toward gays, but calling that minister bigoted for his views could inspire hatred against Christians. There simply is no limit to what the government can ban under such a vague standard.
And I love this ridiculous statement:
Minister Hirsch Ballin says the Netherlands has an international obligation to crack down on this type of discrimination.
What discrimination? The cartoonist is offering his opinions; opinions cannot possibly discriminate. They might be used to justify discrimination, but they cannot possibly discriminate themselves. And since this cartoonist isn't in any position to actually discriminate against anyone, this is an entirely fake argument. Having someone criticize you or your religion is not discrimination, nor will it ever be.
I'm not going to mince words: this is authoritarian madness. It is precisely the sort of liberty-crushing totalitarianism displayed by fascist and communist governments around the world and we should condemn it no less when it's done by an ally. The Netherlands is in many ways a far more enlightened place than America, but here they are sacrificing one of the core principles of a free society and that can never be excused.
Politics
Comments
The "discrimination" bit might be due to poor translation. Maybe the original word he used in Dutch doesn't carry the same connotations as the English word "discrimination".
But other than that, I fully agree with your critique of this. It worries me that there has been a successful movement in Europe and Canada to censor "hate speech". I disagree strongly with racism and bigotry, but I fear government censorship more than I fear the rantings of racist douchebags.
Hopefully the Dutch will come to their senses and exonerate this guy. If not, I may have to scratch the Netherlands off my list of countries to flee to in the event that the religious right ever manages to actually take over this country and enact the agenda they've been striving for.
Posted by: Wes | May 20, 2008 9:29 AM
At least it seems the Dutch cops aren't releasing the cartoonist's real name (nor that of his teddy bear).
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 20, 2008 10:30 AM
I was unable to figure out from the article exactly what crime Mr. Nekschot was charged with. Is "Insulting Religion" officially a crime in The Netherlands? If so, this may be a necessary test case to get such a ridiculous law removed from the books.
Posted by: BobApril | May 20, 2008 10:58 AM
Sure its broad, but Britain's already outlawed hateful speech. The Europeans are doing this sort of thing, and whether we agree with it or not, they're doing it from a different legal foundation from that which exists in the United States. In other words, they may, like in Britain, have every right, legally to do this; I don't know enough about Dutch law to say one way or another.
Posted by: Julian | May 20, 2008 11:00 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | May 20, 2008 11:02 AM
...they may, like in Britain, have every right, legally to do this...
Tyrants, theocrats and military juntas have LOTS of legal rights to do a wide range of things. That doesn't make any of them right or justifiable. Legal or not, this act of suppression -- basically a pre-emptive cave-in to the most thin-skinned extremists -- is wrong, destructive, and in clear violation of the most basic principles of free speech in a republican society.
And it won't prevent violence by those extremists either; it will only encourage it, by showing the whole world that one regime, at least, can be cowed by it. This disgraceful appeasement will not make any part of the world a safer or more peaceful place.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 20, 2008 11:12 AM
Dutch law? I see no law, at least as far as I understand the term, here. The whim of a prosecutor allows him (her?) allows the arrest of a citizen for insulting(?!!) religion.
Fuck god. All of them. Now I'm wanted in the land of tulips and wooden shoes.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | May 20, 2008 12:07 PM
Bert - and dope and prostitues. :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 12:13 PM
BobApril: there is probably no such thing as a "test case" in Dutch law. As most Continental European countries, their law is based on the Code Civil (vs. common law). The two main ways this could be challenged are public indignation (likely, and the fact that the racist right has a moderately strong influence in the Netherlands is a bad reason for it), and via the European Court of Human Rights (very likely, this court usually gives sound rulings, but it is a lengthy process as this must first be judged and then diplomatic pressure must be exerted over the Netherlands to comply).
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | May 20, 2008 12:32 PM
This just goes to show that the left is no more conducive to free speech than the right.
Posted by: Bill in NC | May 20, 2008 12:42 PM
The worship of the idol of "free speech" is peculiar to the USA; no other countries are as obsessive about it.
Post-Enlightenment European culture is more about obtaining some sort of balance and social harmony based on rationality, not about sanctification of a few abstract ideals. So we happily bumble along with individual rights constrained by social needs.
Even in the US free speech is constrained (I don't know the laws, but I know you can't be libellous, and surely there must be other restrictions?). So the boundaries are always fuzzy, and the distinction that some countries are trying to draw is between honest debate (it certainly is NOT a crime in the Netherlands to say that Islam is based on false beliefs) and being deliberately insulting and trouble-making.
Many Europeans would accept that it is reasonable to (try to) draw a distinction between honest debate and inflammatory insults. I don't think Ed likes that distinction as free speech seems to be an absolute to him. During the period of glasnost in the old USSR, the commentator Vitaly Vitaliev responded to remarks about how great all this new openness must be for Russians by saying that his ill-nourished compatriots "... don't want freedom of speech, they want freedom of sausage."
Sorry dear Americans, but I think this is one where you should try to understand that European countries may have a different angle on some of these issues, and that it our democratic right to set these constraints in our laws. That's the magic of democracy; the society sets its standards for individual and group behaviour. Would you deny us that? The US constitution does not apply worldwide!
Now I'll probably get the lectures on how misguided I am!
Posted by: Sam Centipedro | May 20, 2008 12:42 PM
Allah eats Mohammad's ass. There, I said it. I await my execution.
Unless I see them coming. Then, hey, it's self defense.
Posted by: Globle Warren Tourism | May 20, 2008 12:43 PM
Sam Centipedro wrote:
The flaw in this is the notion that "social needs" are served by giving government the authority to decide which opinions and arguments are allowed and which are not.
The fact that we have some rational limits on speech does not mean they are "always fuzzy." In fact, we have been quite careful to draw those exceptions extremely narrowly and precisely. Libel does not prevent the expression of any opinion or argument, only the deliberate spreading of factual claims that one knows to be false with the intent to defame. American libel laws are notoriously difficult to prove as a result. The problem with your argument, again, is that it is neither rational nor practical to give to government the task of discerning between "honest debate" and "insults." Many persuasive arguments that have had enormous influence have been phrased as satire and ridicule. Voltaire's Candide is a good example. Under this silly notion that one cannot insult a religion, what you call post-Enlightenment Europe would give government the authority to prevent the publishing of one of the greatest and most influential books of the Enlightenment. Ridicule and satire are powerful tools of persuasion and they always have been. A government that bans such tools is tyrannical and is actively undermining the honest search for truth. Europe needs to get back to those Enlightenment ideals, not jettison them.
Indeed you will. Because indeed you are.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2008 12:58 PM
Sam said:
I'm quite sure he has no problem with that distinction-- he simply disagrees, as I do, that inflammatory insults should be illegal.
Every time Ed makes a post about some other country prohibiting a certain type of speech, somebody pops up in here saying "It's their right do that; surely you Americans don't think your constitution applies everywhere!" And each time, they are completely missing the point. The matter of whether another country's government may, by its own laws, prohibit a type of speech is not in question. What is in question is whether they should do so. I hope you're not going to suggest that people in one country cannot legitimately spot injustice that happens in another country and comment on it.
The "magic of democracy," both in Europe and in the states, frequently leads to the oppression of the minority...which is precisely why America's founders deemed it necessary to provide for freedom of speech as the very first of the Bill of Rights. If that freedom does not apply for Europeans, more's the pity. I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 20, 2008 12:59 PM
Sam Centripedo wrote:
Sam, we do understand that Europeans have a different angle on these issues. We just find your angle to be obtuse.
Yes, it's your democratic right to make different rules than we do in the U.S. But we would point out in response that democracy is not a good choice for one's highest value--the tyranny of the majority is not just an abstract concept. Our "abstract ideals" that you seem to think are of minor importance are about maximizing individual liberty, rather than giving mobs the authority to shut people up just because they're uncomfortable listening to them.
Our "social harmony" is based on live and let live, rather than "let live as long as you don't offend." I'm not saying Europeans have to follow the U.S. on this--I'm just saying you shouldn't expect us to be impressed by European fear of individuals' freedom of thought and expression.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 20, 2008 1:03 PM
I'm a fan of Dutch cyclist Marianne Vos. Apropos of nothing in this post, of course. Perhaps the pushback will improve free expression rights in the end?
Posted by: Phil | May 20, 2008 1:05 PM
I would note, by the way, that to portray this as some kind of fundamental divide in American/European perspectives on free speech is absurd. Danish cartoons, anyone?
Posted by: Gretchen | May 20, 2008 1:08 PM
"Many Europeans would accept that it is reasonable to (try to) draw a distinction between honest debate and inflammatory insults."
But who gets to decide the difference? Most of the people imprisoned by dictatorships were imprisoned for "inflammatory insults." The question is would you rather risk the suppression of honest debate to avoid any inflammatory insults or risk inflammatory insults in order to allow honest debate?
"During the period of glasnost in the old USSR, the commentator Vitaly Vitaliev responded to remarks about how great all this new openness must be for Russians by saying that his ill-nourished compatriots '... don't want freedom of speech, they want freedom of sausage.'"
The problem with the USSR was that it failed to deliver either.
Posted by: Bill in NC | May 20, 2008 1:13 PM
Sam Centipedro: No lecture. Yes, societies can set up whatever restraints they desire, and the claim of the "right" to do whatever is nothing but misplaced Platonism.
That does not mean that this is not a bad policy, though. The free circulation of ideas is much more valuable to a society than whatever cost in "social harmony" is being prevented by the arrest.
Bill in NC: I'm not sure "left" and "right" have any particular meaning in this context. It is much more a matter favoring or opposing state power. For instance, is George W. Bush a leftist because he has vastly expanded state power and spending? No, he's still a reactionary, just one who prefers to work throught the mechanisms of the state rather than a corporatist model.
Go Heels!
Posted by: kehrsam | May 20, 2008 1:19 PM
So how many people are executed in the US only to be found postumously innocent? How many balcks are in jail for having ludicrously small amounts of craked cocaine, while white (heavier) cocaine users walk free? How many inmates sre still sitting in GITMO without trail, access to a lawyer, years after being arrested? How many have ended up there after being "extraordinarial rendered" or even tortured on site? How many Iraqis civilians have been killed in an illegal war?
Yep you Ameriacns keep lecturing the rest of the world on justice and human rights. You know so much about it -DJ
Posted by: DinjoJack | May 20, 2008 1:23 PM
Thanks, DingoJack, for offering up the other, equally misguided, response that comes up every time Ed makes a post like this: "You Americans aren't in a position to say jack about other countries!" Which might make some sense if Ed were saying that America's got everything right. But as should be obvious by the posts he makes every single day criticizing American governmental officials on various levels including violations of free speech, he isn't.
If you were trolling or otherwise being facetious and I missed it, feel free to disregard this post.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 20, 2008 1:35 PM
I think I was saying that the moral high ground some posters seem to be trying to occupy is slipping away from under you. I did not include Ed in that, because I am aware of his stirling efforts to point out this kind of hypocrisy.
Face it, we all do dumb things, point them out by all means, but don't try to become the beacon of justice or human rights, you end up looking more like a whitened sepulchre. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 1:46 PM
DJ,
I just looked back through all of the posts, and I don't know which posters you're referring to. Nobody has come remotely close to "trying to become the beacon of justice or human rights," or implying that America is such.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 20, 2008 1:54 PM
Plenty seemed to jump all over Sam Centipedro's argument, and to my reading (remember it's 4:00am here), came across rather too smug & sanctimonous. But I do dumb rhings too, like read things wrongly and interpret them even worse. -DJ
(even mangle my grammar)
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 2:03 PM
Sorry Gretchen gotta sleep. Comback late in your evening and we will argue it then. Goodnight all. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2008 2:09 PM
That's correct. About 20-30 years ago I'm pretty sure the Dutch word "discriminatie" meant the same as the English "discrimination". But the meaning has drifted (due to sloppy usage) and now it seems to have become accepted that it includes the justification or encouragement of (unjustified) discrimination.
That is also true, and I am one of those many Europeans. It is also borne out by Dutch jurisprudence. However there was an analysis of this case in NRC Handelsblad yesterday (one of the serious Dutch papers). Their conclusion is that the chance of a conviction in this case is almost zero. Practically all convictions under this law have been of people shouting insults at the intended recipients.
So it does indeed seem to be a case of the Minister of Justice and the public prosecutor colluding to bully a cartoonist, which is pretty grotesque. Hirsch Ballin is incidentally a notoriously petty-minded and generally unimpressive minister: the sort of person you'd expect as the headmaster of a small second-rate religious school.
Posted by: Stephen | May 20, 2008 2:13 PM
While it may be unfortunate that this cartoonist was arrested for his irresponsible speech, I believe it was a necessary act on the government's part to avoid further terrorist attacks that have been caused by these cartoons. They have been proven to inspire hatred. Writing an article about how dumb that statement is doesn't change the fact that it is true.
Posted by: Shanda | May 20, 2008 2:15 PM
"Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it." - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | May 20, 2008 2:21 PM
Gee, and here I've been thinking that terrorist attacks were caused by terrorists.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 20, 2008 2:24 PM
When cartoons are outlawed, only outlaws will have cartoons. Or something like that.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 20, 2008 2:28 PM
Sam Centipedo said:
"European countries may have a different angle on some of these issues, and that it our democratic right to set these constraints in our laws. That's the magic of democracy; the society sets its standards for individual and group behaviour."
Ah, yes, the magic of democracy. Gives us many good things, like bans on gay marriage, outlawing of pornography, and making divorce illegal. Why is it so hard for people who have the benefit of a free and open society to understand that what makes a society free and open is that personal liberty rules, not democracy?
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 20, 2008 2:28 PM
Shanda: Are you stupid? Sorry to be blunt, but seems like a valid question. Does leaving your door unlocked cause burglary? Should we put people who don't lock their door in jail instead of the burglars? What about rape? If a woman wears sexy clothing, isn't she asking to get raped? I mean, come on! Sexy clothing has been proven to inspire lust!
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 20, 2008 2:34 PM
It seems to me to not be particularly fair to give Sam Centripedo the responsibility for carrying the Dutch governments water for the particulars involved in this case, as it is a rather egregious example.
The point is that this particular case is causing quite an uproar in the Netherlands, with people on many different sidelines all calling foul play by the minister.
In other words, Candide in not likely to banned any time soon in the Netherlands, because this case against the artist is lousy.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 20, 2008 2:48 PM
I can't believe Europeans would actually defend such a ridiculous law. I guess I've lived for too long in the USA, even though I'm Bulgarian and lived most of my early life there (along with a short time in Belgium).
What kind of justification is there for letting the government decide what is speech that "may cause hatred", and prosecuting people not for their actions but for their words? Free speech is a necessity for free society, and developing a slightly thicker skin is a small price to pay for that.
And the comment from Shanda is beyond absurd. Really, maybe you should go talk with the crazy rednecks in the US who think that because some muslims in the middle-east were happy over 9/11 we have a justification to go kill them. Since apparently making cartoons is a good justification for terrorism.
Posted by: Coriolis | May 20, 2008 3:10 PM
Wow. Claiming that Ed can't criticize a concrete case because it's in Europe and the US government does something stupid, that's gotta take the cake.
DJ, ever notice how Ed criticizes US events? You may recall he actually sued the government? Asshat.
Posted by: Torben | May 20, 2008 3:13 PM
Torben: Aside from the fact that Ed freely criticizes the U.S., it's surprising to see DJ commit tu quoque, as he's usually rational.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 20, 2008 3:18 PM
Shanda wrote:
That's a great idea. Terrorists get mad when others express opinions they don't like, so we must outlaw the expression of opinions they don't like. That'll get rid of terrorism. Except, of course, it won't. It will only encourage people to commit more terrorism because it will prove that terrorism gets people what they want. If we just bomb those who bother us, the government will step up and start arresting those who bother us. Sorry, your argument is not merely wrong, it's categorically insane.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2008 3:23 PM
a few factual additions to this:
The Dutch government does not decide whether to arrest and prosecute, the Openbaar Ministerie (somewhat similar to the state attorneys) does. It is part of the judiciary, but admittedly in a very awkward position vis a vis its political master. They have identified 8 or 9 of his cartoons which they argue are punishable. It is not clear whether the case will make it to court, so it is not yet know for certain which cartoons they are.
Whether Nekschot will be convicted (IF the case is brought to trial) is the judge's decision. The laws on discrimination (as noted above, this has a different, negative connotation in Dutch parlance, more closely linked to bigotry) and inciting hatred have let off people participating in public debate (imams, priests, artist, pundits). Apparently, there have been more than a hundred cases per year on average since 2000.
Inciting hatred has to include a deep disgust of the religion of a group of people COUPLED WITH THE UNQUENCHABLE DESIRE TO DESTROY THE GROUP (I love the smell of capitals in the morning!). As Stephen said above, there seems very little chance of an actual conviction under these laws in this case.
Dutch parlementarian Geert Wilders (maker of the film Fitna) is also being investigated on charges of inciting hatred.
Nekschot by the way has not spared christians in his cartoons either, so he can't be discribed as opposed to muslims in particular. His work, which has trouble being published, is not widely known in the Netherlands. He has published a few books and started out on the website of Theo van Gogh, the film maker who was murdered in 2004 by a Dutch muslim for his cooperation with Ayaan Hirsi Ali in making the movie Submission.
here's a few of them:
http://www.hetvrijevolk.com/?pagina=6139
What has caused grave concern in the Netherlands is that the cartoonist was arrested and kept for interrogation for a day and a half. The cartoons for which Nekschot is prosecuted date from 2005, so there seems to be no hurry. The Openbaar Ministerie claims that they were afraid that the cartoonist (whose pseudonym seems to have worked pretty well until recently) might move before they got to him. I think they got him through the payments to his ISP for his web page.
I will have to disappoint Bill in NC that the present minister of Justice is a Christian Democrat, which by DUtch standards is on the right (although they themselves would argue in the centre). By American standards, he would be probably be rated centre, if such a thing has any meaning in US politics.
All parties in the Netherlands (except the Christian Democrats and maybe some of the other christian parties) have expressed concern and anger over how and why the Openbaar Ministerie has acted as it did.
The issue of free speech is very alive the last few years and the tendency I detect is that the population in general is now more drawn to the American interpretation than before, but that the christian conservatives are trying hard to restore some moral order. This case does not seem to do their cause any good.
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 3:29 PM
Hirsh Ballin's party has been trying to resurrect the blasphemy laws that rightly fell in disuse ages ago, and our beloved prime minister has tried to interfere when people made jokes about the queen. But then he's the same Ernst Hirsh Ballin who, when talking about abortion, said earlier: "Het mag niet zover komen dat ouders zich moeten verantwoorden als zij een mongooltje geboren laten worden." In English that's "It should never happen that parents need to justify allowing a child with Down syndrome to be born," and I'm having a really hard time remaining civil in the face of these attitudes. They are of a different century.
Mr. Nekschot's cartoons are utterly tasteless at best (vile is an apt description for many), and I really, really, *really* hate it when these people force me to take his side.
Posted by: Leon | May 20, 2008 3:29 PM
"Post-Enlightenment European culture is more about obtaining some sort of balance and social harmony based on rationality, not about sanctification of a few abstract ideals. So we happily bumble along with individual rights constrained by social needs."
Please allow me to translate that for my fellow Americans, "Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaa".
Ben Franklin said it best "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
(Although that is probably a widely quoted paraphrase.)
Posted by: Lance | May 20, 2008 3:34 PM
It wasn't the actual operation of our political system we were defending, but the ideals we hold up (and, yes, so often come short of). You're a regular reader of this blog, so you're aware that Ed and many of his readers are fully as critical of the errors in the U.S. system as they are of what's going on in the Netherlands.
Our opposition to Sam is that he doesn't seem to even hold these ideals. If countries that do hold the ideals of liberty and justice often perform badly, what hope is there for countries where the citizens don't? (Fortunately this case is in the Netherlands, where those ideals are still strong--rather than, say, Russia.)
Posted by: James Hanley | May 20, 2008 3:39 PM
"I'm not going to mince words: this is authoritarian madness. It is precisely the sort of liberty-crushing totalitarianism displayed by fascist and communist governments around the world and we should condemn it no less when it's done by an ally. The Netherlands is in many ways a far more enlightened place than America, but here they are sacrificing one of the core principles of a free society and that can never be excused."
Ed is of course free to express his outrage about this attempted infringement on free speech. Many Dutch people agree with him.
The laws in Europe are a historical construct. We still have relics like laws on lese majeste. These have not been used in over 40 years although the Christian Democrats have suggested doing it a few years ago. Anti dicrimination laws in the Netherlands (and other European countries) have their roots in the Second World War and fear of a repeat of the Holocaust.
So in fact, no "core principles of a free society" are sacrificed because freedom of speech has never been so wide before. To declare the Netherlands in a state of "liberty-crushing totalitarianism" is just another Ed Brayton hyperbole, for which I love him dearly.
I believe that the legal and civil mechanisms of the Netherlands are able to deal with the misguided actions of the Openbaar Ministerie and the minister. Freedom of speech will only come out of it stronger.
Should the Netherlands turn into a fascist state, I'll come tell Ed in person.
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 3:46 PM
Corioilis said:
"What kind of justification is there for letting the government decide what is speech that "may cause hatred", and prosecuting people not for their actions but for their words?"
I think Sam said it pretty well when he said:
"Post-Enlightenment European culture is more about obtaining some sort of balance and social harmony based on rationality, not about sanctification of a few abstract ideals. So we happily bumble along with individual rights constrained by social needs."
When one walks the very streets where the Nazis rose to power, it may make more sense than from our easy chairs here in the US?
I think Sam's argument makes a lot of sense.
Why should Germans need to protect the public inflammatory speech of NeoNazis? What redeeming social value does the airing of the 2,339,833rd rendition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion fulfill?
Answer: none, really, but protecting that kind of public speech can and does lead to human suffering. Not every idea or speech is equally valuable or worth hearing in a sophisticated society and one valid line of thought is that dangerous worthless ideas should be prohibited.
Somewhat different from our idealized vaunted "freedom of speech", but, as Ed points out, we live with our restrictions by drawing them concisely. Even so, we end up with a mishmash of allowed/disallowed speech - just look at the recent thread on student free speech rights in school.
The European strategy seems, to me, to be not so different from our own. They concisely restrict certain speech, too. They just happen to restrict more inflammatory speech than we do.
But the big difference, it seems to me, between the US and Europe, is that we are simply more reluctant to give powers of censorship to our governmental representatives than the Europeans are.
Ed is pretty much an absolutist free speech proponent, which is also a valid approach. But Ed is also a Libertarian (and a strident civil libertarian), which I think makes him likely to distrust government more than the average bear.
That's fine, but what is so wrong about the European approach? If they are not so worried about government misuse of power, then what is the problem?
And here is where the rubber meets the road. This is a recent experiment by the Europeans. These anti discrimination laws - present in most European countries - have been on the books for a several decades or less. It is too early to judge whether they are a successful approach or not.
To the examples of European censorship gone awry which are a mere cut and paste shortcut away, I have a response: So What?
Sure, there will be problems with a new system of laws, and there will be mistakes. But they will be self-correcting. Europe is not a No Free Speech zone. WE have our system, and it is still generating miscarriages also. But we are not calling for abolition of our system.
And, so, I don't think it is useful to point out hiccups in the European model as "proof" of anything. Certainly not as "proof" that only our system of absolute freedom of speech ( if only such a thing existed) in the US is superior to the European system.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 20, 2008 3:50 PM
Gingerbraker said:
"Why should Germans need to protect the public inflammatory speech of NeoNazis? What redeeming social value does the airing of the 2,339,833rd rendition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion fulfill?
Answer: none, really, but protecting that kind of public speech can and does lead to human suffering. Not every idea or speech is equally valuable or worth hearing in a sophisticated society and one valid line of thought is that dangerous worthless ideas should be prohibited."
So, your argument is that we can protect ourselves against Nazism by embracing fascism?
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 20, 2008 3:56 PM
Bill in NC:
The right is in power in the Netherlands; Prime Minister is J. P. Balkenende, a Christian Democrat.Sam Centipedro:
And rightly so. Like Coriolis above, I am European by origin, birth, and upbringing, and I find your comment completely devoid of critical thought. Others have pointed out the specific flaws in your reasoning, I have nothing to add. I am mainly writing this to remind others here that you don't represent Europeans.DingoJack:
A textbook example of irrelevant argument.
Posted by: bullfighter | May 20, 2008 3:56 PM
"I believe that the legal and civil mechanisms of the Netherlands are able to deal with the misguided actions of the Openbaar Ministerie and the minister. Freedom of speech will only come out of it stronger."
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Past experience suggests that's what will happen, but that does not make this particular situation any more pleasant.
Posted by: Leon | May 20, 2008 3:56 PM
It's unpleasant, but comical rather than frightening. If I didn't know Ed I would suggest he'd better take some pills. Now, if the guy were convicted... that's a different story. But then Ed would be drowned out by Dutch voices.
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 4:05 PM
bullfighter,
Glad to hear that not all europeans are sheeple.
Posted by: Lance | May 20, 2008 4:06 PM
kehrsam wrote,"I'm not sure "left" and "right" have any particular meaning in this context."
...and jur wrote"I will have to disappoint Bill in NC that the present minister of Justice is a Christian Democrat, which by DUtch standards is on the right (although they themselves would argue in the centre). By American standards, he would be probably be rated centre, if such a thing has any meaning in US politics."
I realize the American understanding of left/right, conservative/liberal doesn't apply in other parts of the world. I referred to this incident as being "leftist" censorship because the left usually promotes egalitarianism and favors the suppression of "hate speech." My comment was a generalization about this tendancy and how defending free speech requires a wariness of all sides.
Posted by: Bill in NC | May 20, 2008 4:07 PM
Oops,
Forgive the uncapitalized "Europeans".
Posted by: Lance | May 20, 2008 4:08 PM
Jur,
So it is of no concern to you that a person was arrested and faces prosecution by authorities for expressing satirical ideas because he has yet to be convicted?
You have an odd sense of justice. Perhaps my crude colonial mind is incapable of the subtleties of your European jurisprudence.
Posted by: Lance | May 20, 2008 4:18 PM
"My comment was a generalization about this tendancy and how defending free speech requires a wariness of all sides."
Which shows the dangers of generalisation. ;)
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 4:20 PM
"It's unpleasant, but comical rather than frightening."
Oh, no, not frightening at all. I took Ed's comments to be strongly worded hyperbole, and in that spirit I agree with them. It will be interesting how this plays out, though I can't imagine mr. Nekschot actually being convicted of anything but bad taste.
Posted by: Leon | May 20, 2008 4:27 PM
I think I was saying that the moral high ground some posters seem to be trying to occupy is slipping away from under you.
And this makes the Netherlands' suppression of free speech out-of-bounds to criticism...how? If only perfect people can criticize others, then no one will ever be criticized, no matter how blatantly evil their actions may be.
...but don't try to become the beacon of justice or human rights, you end up looking more like a whitened sepulchre.
Those in other countries who need a little help securing such rights for themselves might beg to differ. Also, we don't look all that great, or get that much respect, when we spinelessly cave in to tyranny, either. Given a choice, I'll do the "whitened sepulchre" thing any day. Even when you fail or get a bit hypocritical, you stil get more respect for trying to to the right thing than for not trying.
I believe it was a necessary act on the government's part to avoid further terrorist attacks that have been caused by these cartoons.
What evidence, or cause-and-effect chain, do you have to prove that ANY cartoon ever "caused" a terrorist attack? And what specific terrorist attack would be prevented by the suppression of such cartoons?
They have been proven to inspire hatred.
The last time around, no such thing was proven: no hatred was inspired until the Saudi state-controlled media started whipping it up -- not because of the cartoons, which had first been published MONTHS earlier, but because they needed to distract attention from their latest crowd-control disaster at the Hajj. And even then, some fruit-bat imam in Denmark had to add fabricated cartoons to the mix because the real ones still weren't inspiring enough hatred.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 20, 2008 4:41 PM
Jur writes:
And then gingerbaker writes:
Perhaps you two could consult with one another and decide whether these laws are relics that haven't been used in decades, or are brand spanking new and it's too early to judge how well they work. Either way, I will continue to maintain that they are unjust no matter how old or new they are, a position neither of you have even attempted to engage.
gingerbaker wrote:
You have it backwards. I don't mistrust government because I'm a civil libertarian, I'm a civil libertarian because I mistrust government. And history provides more than adequate support for that mistrust. But my position here has little to do with mistrust. I need to imagine no slippery slopes for the purpose of my argument. My argument is that the government has no authority to punish anyone for their opinions and to do so is inherently unjust, period. Yes, there is the further argument that giving them the authority to do so will lead to even worse injustices, but my argument does not depend upon that eventuality (though I think it is undeniably true anyway).
Jur wrote:
Free speech has already been weakened by the mere fact that this man can be arrested and charged under such a law. Even if he is acquitted, the damage has already been done and will serve as a lesson to the next person. Free speech has been chilled regardless, as the next person who wants to express an opinion that might be viewed askance by someone in power will have to think twice about whether it is worth the trouble even if they would ultimately be exonerated.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2008 4:44 PM
This kind of stuff is happening all over Europe right now. I've read plenty of other similar cases as well. In Australia some people were prosecuted for insulting Islam last year. Folks, like it or not, this is what you get when you pass hate speech legislation. If this guy in the Netherlands is charged, it will be under hate speech laws. Unfortunately, this kind of legislation has been gaining ground here in America as well. In NJ, you can now be prosecuted for making somebody feel "intimidated". What the heck does that mean? A certain look? Certain statements? With that kind of broad language, almost any action can be thrown into the "intimidation" category. And the burden of "proof" is somebody's feelings! How absurd can this be? If you are convicted of intimidation you can be fined, go to jail, be forced to attend "sensitivity training" and pay restitution. Hate speech certainly is not nice, but the protection of free speech is a far greater good than protecting certain groups from insults. We should stamp out every possibly effort at passing hate speech laws.
Posted by: mroberts | May 20, 2008 4:45 PM
I am always amused when I get the "how dare you criticize another country when America has so many problems" argument after posts like this. If I was some right wing uber-patriot who thought my country was perfect, that response might be reasonable. But I'm not. Hell, I'm not even close. I'm about the least patriotic person you will ever encounter. I don't get weepy eyed about the flag and I think anyone who gives a shit who wears a flag pin on their lapel is, by definition, a fucking moron. My allegiance is to principles, not nation-states. When my country supports those principles, I support my country. And when it doesn't, I condemn my country loudly and often. When it comes to just the Netherlands, I have written thousands of words praising that nation for their far more rational stand on sexuality and sex education and condemning my own government's ridiculous abstinence fetish and puritanical ignorance. I've written thousands of words praising the Netherlands for their far more enlightened and moral stance on sexual orientation, and condemned my own country's tradition of bigotry and injustice toward gays and lesbians. I am the last person who should ever be accused of being an arrogant American who thinks his nation is perfect. I've more than earned the right to criticize on this issue because I criticize solely on the basis of principles and couldn't give two shits about nationalism.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2008 4:51 PM
Did mroberts just say something I agreed with?
I need to lay down.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 20, 2008 4:56 PM
>> Not every idea or speech is equally valuable or worth hearing in a sophisticated society and one valid line of thought is that dangerous worthless ideas should be prohibited. >>
Ginger, the problem you run into with this is deciding what forms of speech are "worthless" and which are not. Anybody can suddenly find their ideas "worthless" and "prohibited" with a change in the political leadership of the country. You can lose a lot of freedoms and still be relatively free, but lose the ability to think and believe what you wish and you have arrived at absolute tyranny. How can one possibly imagine a worse society to live in than one where the government tells you what you can and cannot believe? It is unfortunate that people today take freedom so much for granted that they don't realize how dangerous it is to gradually lose it. Our Founders understood how important freedom of speech is; it is no coincidence, I believe, that it is one of the first rights enumerated in our Constitution.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ed on this one.
Posted by: mroberts | May 20, 2008 4:57 PM
"I referred to this incident as being "leftist" censorship because the left usually promotes egalitarianism and favors the suppression of "hate speech." My comment was a generalization about this tendancy and how defending free speech requires a wariness of all sides"
Indeed it does. And curiously, at this time, the left leaning part of Dutch politics is fairly unified in defending freedom of expression. That wasn't always the case, at least not nearly as strongly. 9/11 set off some bizarre dynamics here, though. Who, after all, would expect the intricacies of Somali law to become a major theme in Dutch politics? Such fun.
Posted by: Leon | May 20, 2008 5:08 PM
"Perhaps you two could consult with one another and decide whether these laws are relics that haven't been used in decades, or are brand spanking new and it's too early to judge how well they work."
Gingerbaker and I do not contradict on the facts, although we do not agree on interpretation. We both argue that the anti-discrimination laws were established post-WWII. To me that is rooted in history, to Ginger that is a recent experiment. The law I referred to as a relic was lese majeste.
"Free speech has already been weakened by the mere fact that this man can be arrested and charged under such a law. Even if he is acquitted, the damage has already been done and will serve as a lesson to the next person."
As far as I can see now, the public and political backlash against the minister and the prosecutioner's office is now such that it is unlikely to be used in that way again. Therefore, free speech gets stronger.
"My argument is that the government has no authority to punish anyone for their opinions and to do so is inherently unjust, period."
Opinions, fine, agreed. But what if the expression aims to hurt, grieve and demean an individual? What if it calls on people to kill faggots, hunt down and hang niggers or exclude spics from communities? Where does an opinion stop being 'just an opinion'?
Even then, if we step away from the principal to the practical, the legal limits to free speech in the Netherlands (and most of Europe) are not very stringent, especially when considering where we were in 1950 (ie not compared to nazi laws!).
There are more urgent matters in the criminal system of the Netherlands right now, like rights of suspects (eg to have their lawyers present during interrogation and the slavish acceptance of judges of the prosecution's arguments).
Also the limits to free speech are much stronger in the challenge by political correctness. And we don't even have powerful (legal) lobbies that restrict freedom of speech through advertisements and boycots.
You can blow this up as much as you like, of course. This is your show. But civilisation is not under threat. This is not a storm threatening the dikes.
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 5:24 PM
mroberts said:
"Ginger, the problem you run into with this is deciding what forms of speech are "worthless" and which are not. Anybody can suddenly find their ideas "worthless" and "prohibited" with a change in the political leadership of the country."
I don't think that is a problem in Europe, although I certainly could be wrong. I believe the set up insulates the process from that kind of influence.
The other thing to keep in mind is that there a lot of different countries and a lot of different approaches to the selection and definition of non protected speech.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 20, 2008 5:33 PM
"Free speech has already been weakened by the mere fact that this man can be arrested and charged under such a law. Even if he is acquitted, the damage has already been done and will serve as a lesson to the next person. Free speech has been chilled regardless, as the next person who wants to express an opinion that might be viewed askance by someone in power will have to think twice about whether it is worth the trouble even if they would ultimately be exonerated."
While this is true in principle, I'm sure quite sure it applies here. For one, the Dutch department of justice arresting mr. Nekschot comes as a rather large and very unpleasant surpirise to pretty much everyone here. Politicians of every major and minor party have already expressed as much publically. Except for the Christian Democrats and the Christian splinter parties (we don't have any other religiously based parties). To anyone familiar with Dutch politics, this comes as no surprise. The country is struggling with how to (re-)shape public discourse, and I tend to see this as an outgrowth of that. Unpleasant, certainly, especially for the person who was arrested, but ultimately of little consequence by itself.
This incident is now international news, but people attempting to quash any public speech of art display or books or whatever are actually fairly commonplace now. Almost invariably there's a strong reaction. We're struggling with this. Have been for some time. Freedom of expression isn't in any danger so far.
Posted by: Leon | May 20, 2008 5:40 PM
>> I don't think that is a problem in Europe, although I certainly could be wrong. I believe the set up insulates the process from that kind of influence. >>
On what basis are you judging it not to be a problem?
Posted by: mroberts | May 20, 2008 5:41 PM
"Opinions, fine, agreed. But what if the expression aims to hurt, grieve and demean an individual? What if it calls on people to kill faggots, hunt down and hang niggers or exclude spics from communities? Where does an opinion stop being 'just an opinion'?"
Seriously? You really don't see a qualitative difference between being critical of religion and inciting others to violence?
Posted by: Chayanov | May 20, 2008 5:44 PM
"Seriously? You really don't see a qualitative difference between being critical of religion and inciting others to violence?"
of course I do. But there's a broad grey area in between. That is where the judge has to decide intent and context.
I was taking up Ed's argument on freedom of speech. As Ed thinks opinions should be free, I was asking when opinions stop being just that. Ie to clarify where freedom ends. Principles are fine, in practice you often have to deal with muddy water.
In the present case it is pretty clear that the cartoons were not inciting violence. That is why it is unlikely to be brought to trial, let alone lead to a conviction.
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 5:53 PM
Reading the RNW article, I can see how it could fuel so many misunderstandings. It is pretty weak English in a delicate matter.
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 5:56 PM
Chayanov said:
"Seriously? You really don't see a qualitative difference between being critical of religion and inciting others to violence?"
Jur said:
"of course I do. But there's a broad grey area in between. That is where the judge has to decide intent and context."
Um. I know English isn't your first language, so, a "qualitative" would mean that there is a discontinuity in the "quality" of the two things -- i.e., not a "quantitative" difference. If you agree that there is a qualitative difference, then there shouldn't be a continuous grey area between the two.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 20, 2008 6:14 PM
Jur wrote:
You just named two entirely different types of speech - speech that might "hurt" or "demean" someone and speech that advocates violence against them. The first category should absolutely be protected speech. No one has a right not to be offended by someone's opinion of them and no government has the legitimate authority to punish such expression. Threats of violence are an entirely different category of speech. The government must take credible threats seriously as it is their job - the very reason we create governments - to protect people in such circumstances.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2008 6:30 PM
"I know English isn't your first language, so, a "qualitative" would mean that there is a discontinuity in the "quality" of the two things"
I guess I missed that interpretation.
1. Then probably I don't see a qualitative difference between opinions and inciting to hatred. At least, not in the way they express themselves. Eg in the phrase: shoot all lawyers and let God sort them out. Is that incitement to violence? Context!
1b. And what if somebody says, "we don't like having you queer boys around here"? Is that just an opinion?
1c. And what if somebody says, "we are not offering you this job because you are a Jew"
2. The cartoons in question are not merely critical of religion. They are insulting as well. Nobody in the Netherlands has been prosecuted for being critical. People have been prosecuted for being insulting, and when this happened as part of public debate, they have been acquitted. This is judge territory.
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 6:32 PM
"No one has a right not to be offended by someone's opinion of them and no government has the legitimate authority to punish such expression."
So bullying is fine?
Posted by: Jur | May 20, 2008 6:41 PM
If bullying means expressing an opinion someone doesn't like, yes. If bullying means physically intimidating someone or threatening them in any way, no. Nothing this man drew in a cartoon threatens anyone or advocates any action against them. His arrest is unjust, period. You even seem to agree with that, yet you still want to keep up this pretense of an argument. I don't get it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2008 6:43 PM
Factoid: The cartoonist's real name and nom de plume were side by side in the paper (free distribution rag) I read the day the story broke.
Theory I read today: The minister, having failed in parliament to revive blasphemy law, now tries to slip it into jurisprudence.
Posted by: Planeten Paultje | May 20, 2008 6:45 PM
Lance wrote: "Ben Franklin said it best 'Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.'
(Although that is probably a widely quoted paraphrase.)"
Actually, it wasn't Franklin. The words were published on the title page of Richard Jackson's book _An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania_, 1759, which you can see in the original typography here:
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
The book was *published* by Benjamin Franklin. Franklin wrote a letter to David Hume on September 27, 1760 in which he denied that he wrote the statement. Jackson apparently got the statement from a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor of Pennsylvania on November 11, 1755.
The actual quote was "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Posted by: Jim Lippard | May 20, 2008 6:56 PM
I should add that the 1755 letter in question is included in Jackson's book... the cited web page gives the context of the quotation in that letter.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | May 20, 2008 6:58 PM
The next time someone tells you that the Netherlands is a cesspool of liberal filth, cite this case as evidence that he is full of shit.
Posted by: Jacob | May 20, 2008 11:27 PM
In related news, a London teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology a 'cult':
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2610,Teenager-faces-prosecution-for-calling-Scientology-cult,Guardian
Something about it being "insulting". Sheeze louise. One would hope that at least there is a "truth" defense available for this "crime".
Posted by: Divalent | May 21, 2008 12:05 AM
Principle aside, there is a good reason to oppose any of these hate speech laws.
Question: "What institution do you trust to decide which ideas are permissible and which are not?"
There is only one correct answer: "None."
Politicians tend to believe that people who disagree with them are morally deficient. Sooner or later one will come along that tries to do anything about it. Once you open the door it is almost impossible to shut. The only way to avoid that is to seal the door, with explosives if necessary. That is why the 1st amendment was created.
And don't tell me such politicians are rare, it doesn't matter, flip a coin enough times and it will eventually land on its edge and in policy the long game is the only game in town. If you say such a politician is impossible I will simply laugh at you. It may take decades but sooner or later this will end badly.
Oh, and for the record I am a New Zealander so if you want to pull the guilt by association thing on me you may have to do a little research.
Posted by: James K | May 21, 2008 2:37 AM
"Nothing this man drew in a cartoon threatens anyone or advocates any action against them. His arrest is unjust, period. You even seem to agree with that, yet you still want to keep up this pretense of an argument. I don't get it."
What I've been trying to argue is that the laws under which he was charged are reasonable laws to have. It seems you are agreed that incitement to hatred and intimidating forms of expressing an opinion should be punishable. As Nekschot was charged under these articles of law (articles 137 c and d of the criminal code) he wasn't charged for merely 'expressing an opinion' but for something which, if the charges were justified, is a serious offense.
This contradicts your initial statement that "There simply is no limit to what the government can ban under such a vague standard." The application of these laws is limited by jurisprudence and the interpretations by our Hoge Raad (Supreme Court, but it does not have the same tasks as the US supreme court).
So the laws in themselves are not so much of a problem. The problem is that the Openbaar Ministerie laid charges on this cartoonist even though the chances of conviction and even getting to a trial are remote. This error was compounded by the high handed manner in which the arrest and interrogation were executed.
In the Netherlands nobody is worried about the charges per se because nobody believes he will be convicted. What people are worried are about is the arrest. So your claim that we are facing "authoritarian madness" and "liberty-crushing totalitarianism" is far from the truth. It is more like conservative sillyness and has backfired. But I admit that "liberty-crushing totalitarianism" sounds much better.
Further note: last night the minister has admitted in a special parliamentary debate that the arrest and long interrogation were disproportional and intimidating. All political parties (including the christian parties) agreed.
Posted by: Jur | May 21, 2008 2:53 AM
>> In related news, a London teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology a 'cult':
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2610,Teenager-faces-prosecution-for-calling-Scientology-cult,Guardian
Something about it being "insulting". Sheeze louise. One would hope that at least there is a "truth" defense available for this "crime". >>
Folks, the ones who are pushing hardest for hate speech laws are LIBERALS. I sure hope you realize that such laws, while they may stifle your political opponents for now, will mean a loss of freedom for everybody eventually. Check out all the laws passed around the country in states like PA and NJ and even the efforts at the national level that are designed to target hate crimes and hate speech. Who is pushing them predominantly? LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. This case and the Dutch case are the typical outcomes of such legislation. Hate crimes and speech laws are BAD for America, and I hope all of you that are lefty in your persuasion at least have the principle and intellectual honesty to recognize it.
Posted by: mroberts | May 21, 2008 3:09 AM
I think that's exactly right, particularly when one considers not just the laws but also the associated jurisprudence.
There is however one other point that should be mentioned, and that is the chosen pseudonym of the cartoonist. A "nekschot" is the shot one uses to execute a prisoner in cold blood. In combination with the tasteless cartoons, one could just about make a case that he is in fact inciting violence, though it's not very strong. (And even if cartoons which I haven't seen make the case stronger, it wouldn't excuse the manner in which the Openbaar Ministerie handled the arrest.)
Posted by: Stephen | May 21, 2008 4:30 AM
Jur said:
" It seems you are agreed that incitement to hatred and intimidating forms of expressing an opinion should be punishable. "
No, what Ed said was incitement to violence, not hatred. Don't you see the difference? He was also careful to say that only physically intimidating expression might be punishable.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | May 21, 2008 5:43 AM
I'm not missing the point, I get what you're saying. You're saying that these countries shouldn't act in this way because its some basic violation of the rights of humans to restrict speech. The problem with that argument is that foreign governments are under no compulsion to live up to your ideals. The great thing about the United States is that we have a system of law that makes it illegal for our government, or any organization of any kind, to act in this way. That is one of the many stupendous things that sets our form of government apart as freer, more open, and designed for the benefit of the citizen. Our system of law is founded upon ideals and values that we judge eternal and necessary for the good they do to basic human dignity. Few other countries base their legal systems on such ideals. The legal traditions of the vast majoirty of European countries, like England, are founded in periods of authoritarianism. They may come a long way towards a more humanistic approach to law, but they still grant overawing authority to the State, and no matter how much you dislike it, other legal systems are not required to respect your ideals. They aren't required to follow your ideals. They aren't required to acknowledge your ideals.
We, as U.S. citizens, dislike what they are doing; of course we do, so did our ancestors which is why they hopped on leaky boats and traveled to the other side of the Earth to get away from Europe. But what you are doing is demanding that European governments, who's histories rest on a different base than yours, who's societies are founded not on valued ideals but upon geographical and tribal identity, who's political traditions are built on central state power, to respect things like freedom of speech and action has highly as a Federation that was founded as an embodiment of Enlightenment ideals and in direct opposition to the ways of Europe. Your anger at them is as misplaced and ignorant as your condescending dismissal of my point.
Posted by: Julian | May 21, 2008 10:02 AM
that should be "as" not "has" between action and highly.
Posted by: Julian | May 21, 2008 10:03 AM
"But what you are doing is demanding that European governments, who's histories rest on a different base than yours, who's societies are founded not on valued ideals but upon geographical and tribal identity, who's political traditions are built on central state power, to respect things like freedom of speech and action as highly as a Federation that was founded as an embodiment of Enlightenment ideals and in direct opposition to the ways of Europe. Your anger at them is as misplaced and ignorant as your condescending dismissal of my point."
Is this some sort of satire? Is this a defense of societies "built on geographical and tribal identity"? Since when is tribalism a valid reason to arrest people for political expression?
Posted by: Lance | May 21, 2008 10:54 AM
Ed: I posteda comment, and it got lost in moderation. Is ScienceBlogs' spam-filtering software made in the Netherlands?
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 21, 2008 11:56 AM
Uh Julian, the fact that something has been the way it's been for a long time (i.e. tradition) bears no relevance as to whether it's the correct thing to do or not. Obviously, the culture of European nations is different from the US, and both are different from China, which is different from Egypt, etc. etc. This isn't news to anybody who's lived outside of his own country, and I've done that on and off since I was 7.
What we've tried to point out is that restricting speech and opinion is stupid and misguided. The same way that abstinence-only education in the US promoted by religious right-wing nutjobs is stupid or misguided, and a number of other things. If you want to argue, argue why you feel that it's OK in certain circumstances, not "well it's tradition. There are good parts and bad parts of societies, and different people have different opinions as to which the good parts and the bad parts are.
In this case my argument is that the value of free speech (and especially the opportunity cost of loosing it) is far higher, then the loss in sanity from having to listen to some neo-nazi or other bigot talking shit (and believe me in the US, there are alot of religious nutjobs that are to me almost as offensive as neonazis). People should be able to draw the line between whining and actions and while I'm all for government stopping people from doing evil actions, I don't want them messing with evil thoughts and expressions. It's wrong as a matter of principle, and the slippery slope associated with it, is more like a gaping chasm.
Of course, at some point a distinction must be made between what is expression and what leads directly to actions - i.e. when a mafia boss tells his subordinates to go kill someone, he's not just expressing an opinion. However in the absense of such a clear casual link, the argument that what neonazis or any other demented moron might say is pure evil and the government should make them shut up, just doesn't work for me (of course on the flip side everyone would be perfectly within their right to explain to them why their views are the verbal equivalent of elephant turd).
Posted by: Coriolis | May 21, 2008 2:33 PM
Some comments here make the point that there's a qualitative difference between expressing an opinion, and advocating violence against someone. But there isn't. Some of mr. Nekschot's cartoons involve an executioner killing people mr. Nekschot doesn't particularly like in various tasteless ways. Real violence against the people depicted people isn't exactly unheard of, so, in principle, a case could be made. This particular case isn't a very good one, but everyone agrees on that.
Posted by: Leon | May 21, 2008 3:32 PM
mroberts:
Folks, the ones who are pushing hardest for hate speech laws are LIBERALS.
You sure about that?
Look, as somebody who would probably be considered somewhat leftish (by US standards; that's hardly identical to the European definition of the term) I have a very, very hard time taking any hate crime law that punishes mere speech seriously. If you're talking about outright attempts to vandalize property (burning crosses on lawns, racist graffiti on houses, etc.) in order to intimidate, though, your right to engage in "free speech" becomes vanishingly small. There's a world of difference in being a nut who reprints the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a nut who thinks it's okay to vandalize Jewish cemetaries. One of those may have opinions I find nauseating, but he didn't force them on you by destroying stuff you find personally important, if not outright inviolable.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | May 21, 2008 4:24 PM
Leon:
Some comments here make the point that there's a qualitative difference between expressing an opinion, and advocating violence against someone. But there isn't.
What?
There is clearly a qualitative difference; is advocating the abolition of marijuana prohibition laws equivalent to lighting up a bong yourself? What about writing a short story about a homicidal maniac? Is that equivalent to performing the murders described in that work of fiction?
Some of mr. Nekschot's cartoons involve an executioner killing people mr. Nekschot doesn't particularly like in various tasteless ways. Real violence against the people depicted people isn't exactly unheard of, so, in principle, a case could be made.
If so, it's a lousy case. I have a real problem with laws that prevent incitement by means of prior restraint, and that's exactly what this prosecution seems to be about.
This particular case isn't a very good one, but everyone agrees on that.
Feel free to google "Mike Diana" or "Boiled Angel" for several reasons as to why prosecutions like this are a waste of time.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | May 21, 2008 4:48 PM
Chris Krolczyk wrote:
"Some comments here make the point that there's a qualitative difference between expressing an opinion, and advocating violence against someone. But there isn't.
What?
There is clearly a qualitative difference; is advocating the abolition of marijuana prohibition laws equivalent to lighting up a bong yourself? What about writing a short story about a homicidal maniac? Is that equivalent to performing the murders described in that work of fiction?"
Of course not. There is a qualitative difference in intent, but not the actual words, outside of their context. I've already said I rather strongly disagree with mr. Nekschot's arrest, and with the attidudes of the officials quoted in the press. Yet I can't agree that the concept of hate speech laws in general is such a bad idea. Badhate speech laws, or easily abused ones, are bad. And I think that includes most of them.
"If so, it's a lousy case. I have a real problem with laws that prevent incitement by means of prior restraint, and that's exactly what this prosecution seems to be about."
It does seem so. And it looks like the law they are invoking is one meant for exactly that. It's one of the more ridiculous scary terrorists in the closet, err, mosque laws.
mroberts:
regarding liberals and hate speech, it seems that the law invoked is one pushed through post 9/11 with the explicit purpose of getting at radical imams. By the rightwing government, opposed by the left.
Posted by: Leon | May 21, 2008 6:30 PM
Here's an anecdote from the 1700s that reminds us how important freedom of speech is:
Back when the Bill of Rights was in the process of being debated and ratified, someone (allegedly) brought a copy of the BoR to Thomas Jefferson, and asked him: "If you had to give up all but one of these rights, which one would you keep?" To which Jefferson replied: "I would keep freedom of speech, and use it to get back all of the other rights."
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 22, 2008 9:44 AM
Leon:
There is a qualitative difference in intent, but not the actual words, outside of their context.
That's as maybe, but "intent" shouldn't be prosecuted; real crimes or conspiracy in furthering such crimes should be.
I've already said I rather strongly disagree with mr. Nekschot's arrest, and with the attidudes of the officials quoted in the press. Yet I can't agree that the concept of hate speech laws in general is such a bad idea.
That's odd, especially when you follow that thought up with this:
Badhate speech laws, or easily abused ones, are bad. And I think that includes most of them.
I see a bit of an uncomfortable contradiction, here: first you state that you "can't agree that the concept of hate speech laws in general is such a bad idea" but then go on to state that such laws constitute most of the ones on the book. That tends to make me think that you're dealing with an inherently flawed concept.
Case in point: we had a loon (damned if I can remember his name right now) running around in Illinois who headed a white supremacist organization called the World Church of the Creator. As revolting as his views were, he didn't cross the line until he got caught soliciting an assasination attempt (by an informant wearing a wire) on a Federal judge for ruling against him in a copyright case. In turned out that judge Joan Lefkow's husband and mother were killed by another loon for a completely unrelated reason (she ruled against him in a medical malpractice case), but the simple fact is that it was perfectly acceptable for him to publish his garbage and promote his views until he committed a felony. In that case, prosecution of him was completely justified; the only thing that would've been accomplished by prosecuting him before that would be to make him a martyr in the eyes of his fellow white power rangers. For me, him ending up in jail for a real reason is far better than a completely unjustifiable one.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | May 22, 2008 6:58 PM
Leon:
regarding liberals and hate speech, it seems that the law invoked is one pushed through post 9/11 with the explicit purpose of getting at radical imams. By the rightwing government, opposed by the left.
Not true. The British Labour government pretty much did the same, especially after the Tube bombings. Granted, I'm not sure that what was being sought with those laws was so much jail time as it was deportation of radical imams.
Likewise, Bush has bent over backwards to please the official governments of Iraq and Afghanistan - hardly centers of secular thinking - when a US soldier got caught doing something not to their liking short of allowing domestic criminal prosecution; the Quran "target practice" incident is a good example of this. The soldier in question wasn't handed over to the Iraqi authorities, but he wasn't allowed to stay in active service, either. This is weird, considering incidents like Abu Graib and the like, but it's pretty clear that both Baghdad and Kabul are less willing to tolerate symbolic acts like that than the detention and torture of their own people.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | May 22, 2008 7:10 PM