Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another cartoon controversy in Europe, this time an anti-Jewish cartoon rather than an anti-Islamic one. Let the absurd prosecutions begin:
The Arab European League is to be prosecuted for carrying a cartoon which discriminates against Jews on its website, the Dutch public prosecution department said on Wednesday.The AEL put the cartoon back on its website last month after the public prosecution department decided not to take action against a number of potentially insulting cartoons.
And here come the silly distinctions between which cartoons can be prosecuted and which ones can't:
The department said tv programme Nova and politician Geert Wilders will not be prosecuted for publishing the controversial Danish cartoons which poke fun at Mohammed. The department said reproducing the 12 cartoons, which led to worldwide unrest when published in a Danish newspaper in 2006, is not punishable by law because they target Mohammed not Muslims in general.However, the AEL was told it did face prosecution unless it removes a cartoon featuring two men in suits discussing how to boost the number of people killed during the holocaust.
That cartoon does 'insult Jews because of their race and/or religion' because it implies Jews themselves invented the idea that six million were killed during World War II, the department said at the time.
All of this is absurd. No one should be prosecuted for a cartoon, no matter how insulting anyone else might find it. I repeat this simple truth for what seems like the ten millionth time:
No one has a right not to be insulted. Period. The fact that you find the opinions of others to be insulting does not give you any legitimate authority to bring the power of the state down on them. Get over yourself.
Politics
Comments
This is not (or shouldn't be) about insulting people. This is about publicized holocaust denial, which is an offense in several European countries. You may think it's a stupid law, and there might be a discussion about it. Nonetheless, it's the law...
By the way, I don't understand how a cartoon could "discriminate" against anybody. Advocating discrimination, I could understand, but discrimination itself...? I can't help thinking of the famous "I don't think it means..." line.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 9, 2009 9:30 AM
Yes, stupidity isn't limited to the US. There are plenty of civil rights groups in the UK and elsewhere (the Open Rights Group is one I belong to).
However, I don't know of anyone like Ed (dare one use the word 'pundit'?) who has a regular blog / podcast about these issues from a UK or European perspective. Any suggestions?
Talking of podcasts when's the next Declaring Independence? It's been a while...
Posted by: David Durant | September 9, 2009 9:31 AM
So are there going to be jewish riots now?
Posted by: Naughtius MAximus | September 9, 2009 9:43 AM
Why don't you do one David? It sounds like you might be well placed to do it.
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 9, 2009 9:43 AM
Ed said:
"No one has a right not to be insulted. Period.#
Perhaps in the US that is the case but in Europe ones rights are determined by the law of the particular land you are in.
In Ireland, for instance, religious people DO have the right not to be insulted - due to the new blasphemy law.
The fact that the law is bad, discriminatory or counterproductive is not the point - the right exists.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 9, 2009 9:46 AM
@Sigmund and Cristophe: I am pretty sure when Ed says "No one has a right" etc., he was referring to inalienable rights and/or implying "No one should have a right" etc. We are all aware there are laws in many countries that infringe on these perceived rights; that's not what Ed was getting at, I don't think.
If I said, "Every woman has a right not to get her clitoris lopped off involuntarily", would you be like, "Nuh uh, not in some places in Africa and the middle east!"?? It would be clear what I meant, I think...
Posted by: James Sweet | September 9, 2009 10:14 AM
It seems to me that Ed is pretty consistent: when he doesn't cite an authority, e.g. "the Constitution", he is simply stating his own opinion.
Posted by: xebecs | September 9, 2009 10:32 AM
James, if you read what Ed wrote immediately after his 'No one has a right not to be insulted. Period' - you will read;
"The fact that you find the opinions of others to be insulting does not give you any legitimate authority to bring the power of the state down on them."
I think we were simply pointing out that, unfortunately, the laws of particular lands DO give people the legal right to "bring the power of the state down" on those who insult them (in the case of Ireland, at least).
This is not the case in the US but the legal case he referred to was in a separate country.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 9, 2009 10:38 AM
That would be the reason, Sigmund, for his specifying that no legitimate authority exists.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 9, 2009 11:00 AM
Dutch person here. Christophe Thill is right, this is not primarily about insulting anyone, this is about promoting Holocaust denial. I believe it's not actually illegal to deny the Holocaust in the Netherlands, but there is some legal precedent that Holocaust denial could be seen as hate speech. According to the law, the Public Prosecution is justified to prosecute this case.
I know Ed also doesn't agree that there should be a limit on hate speech either, but hate speech is definitely not one of those cut-and-dried, black-and-white cases. Hate speech very much lives in that gray zone between voicing an unpopular opinion and voicing threats. Let's not pretend that hate speech is a settled argument and that other countries are insane for drawing the line differently.
Posted by: Deen | September 9, 2009 11:05 AM
While I agree with Ed's point, "no one has a right to not be insulted", I think this is arguing a symptom. A symptom that must be addressed and I'm glad Ed chooses to do so; therefire I both agree with his statement and am glad to hang out in a forum that continually promotes our right to do so.
However, I continue to perceive that one root cause (distinctly different from a symptom) of our dysfunctional public square is that some people will promote their agendas by misrepresenting issues, people, or causes. In the USA we have become perfectly incapable of having meaningful debates in the public square within the paradigm of our political parties because one side, nearly all conservatives* both within or to right of the GOP, both purposefully and unconsciously misrepresents the issues being debated. How do you have a productive debate when opponents refuse to agree on the core set of premises that frame the debate? You can't, and it's this obfuscation of the premises along with misstating the premises that has become the only style of argument the GOP and/or far right conservatives are either willing or able to utilize.
I continue to believe, in spite of criticism I've previously received in this forum, that the most effective response to the pollution in the public square is to liberalize our ability to sue in the civil courts and seek adequate damages for people that misrepresent the facts. We should especially massively liberalize who has standing to sue and significantly (though not absolutely) liberalize our slander and libel laws. You should know if you make assertions you either know are not true or have not validated, you're risking financial damages. Personally, maybe because I've studied scientific methodology for so long, it's really not hard to base arguments only on premises you know to be true. It's not hard to be honest. And it's easy to distinguish between those that attempt to make honest arguments from those that are unwilling or incapable.
I admit the new line could not capture everyone who lies so please do not extend my argument to the absurd of someone innocently misstating a fact. I do think people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly should be targets for suits.
I think enough of these cases, where juries of our peers, not judges and legislators set the amount of damages, will create a paradigm where one understands the difference between free speech and libel/slander. I think this new paradigm will help modify the culture where those that lie are ostracized, not enriched with money and power.
Of course jury awards alone won't mitigate this issue, but it should bring light to this issue in the media and if enough people start demanding that media outlets stop providing forums for propaganda, supported by the threat of unlimited damages by a jury against propaganda mills like Fox News and to a far more minor degree, The Huffington Post, we might get a shot at getting an unpolluted public square - where dissent is sought, but lies are punished. In addition, I think the market would realize more demand by students and parents for educators to supply more critical thinking curricula.
Of course such a proposal if it were ever debated would be held up as an example analogous to Obama's 'death panels'; so my optimism I'll ever see this realized is near nil. It is my number two public policy fantasy (number one being we get serious about education). I think both of these policy objectives would also greatly mitigate the frustration we saw from a couple of posters who wish to create less liberal voting rights laws given the tens of millions of voters who are basing their positions developed by their ignorance, idiocy, and delusions.
* I realize there are some on the Left who employ many of the tactics of the Right, but their impact is currently minimal compared to the damage from the Right. The portion of the Left that extends arguments beyond reason is far less populated and they have minimal power both in the Democratic party and in the media (though they certainly have some pull in some of our Universities). Besides, my proposal on solving this would equally damage them as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2009 11:06 AM
Don't get me wrong. I love the Dutch, in particular, having married into a Dutch family. I can't wait until my kid is in high school, because I hope her Dutch cousins will host her for a year. And I think the Dutch are generally among the nicest folks in Europe. But prosecuting for cartoons is insane.
Don't take it personally. We have lots of insane policies in the U.S., too, like locking people up for smokin' a joint, banning drinking until age 21, etc. We're just insane in different ways.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 9, 2009 11:15 AM
Gretchen, your reply to me wasn't completely clear.
'Legitimate', means "according to law" in my dictionary.
In which case Ed is mistaken (unless he means only in the US).
If, however, you define 'legitimate right' as meaning 'moral right' then I can understand and agree.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 9, 2009 11:23 AM
Ed, I fail to see the distinction from Buchanan - two forms of implicit Holocaust denial. just because one pretends to be funny it does not become something different.
Posted by: Heinrich Mallison | September 9, 2009 11:26 AM
As noted, this isn't about offensiveness in general, but holocaust denial specifically. Even in the US, some false speech is prohibited because of the harm done: libel and slander, the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater", and so on.
Various countries in Europe have decided that holocaust denial is in a similar moral category. It's somewhat of a blunt instrument to use against the problem, but given the decision that in this arena it's necessary to stamping out attempts to "have your own facts", the number and effectiveness of alternatives is limited.
Michael Heath: I continue to believe, in spite of criticism I've previously received in this forum, that the most effective response to the pollution in the public square is to liberalize our ability to sue in the civil courts and seek adequate damages for people that misrepresent the facts.
An obvious predictable hazard of this would be creationists such as Ken Ham suing school boards over teaching evolutionary biology when "it's only a theory".
Michael Heath: Personally, maybe because I've studied scientific methodology for so long, it's really not hard to base arguments only on premises you know to be true.
Technically, "premises known to be true" are restricted to mathematics. Science works with "understood to be the closest to true so far proposed". Not really all that central to your point, but since creationists always seem to grasp that in part but not in whole, it's a bit of a pet peeve for me.
Posted by: abb3w | September 9, 2009 11:42 AM
Heinrich @ #14
I don't think Ed is agitating for a prosecution of Pat Buchanan based on his repulsive inaccuracy.
Posted by: Johnny Clamboat | September 9, 2009 11:44 AM
You cannot create or remove a right by passing a law. The best you can do is make violation of a right legal or illegal. Both the U.S. and other countries have many examples of both kinds of laws ...
Posted by: Scott Simmons | September 9, 2009 11:55 AM
abb3w:
I think I may not understand your point. I have no idea how Ham could successfully sue a school board because it's teaching science and how that relates to my arguments about liberalizing our ability to sue for libel, slander, and certain types of lies. What Ham does is not science, but religion. This finding of fact has been discovered repeatedly in the federal courts and nothing I propose should have anything to do with those established findings. As you probably know, theory has a precise meaning in science and 'only a theory' is in no way a legal argument rebutting teaching kids science while also failing to them religion posing as science - in fact my argument would only help those on the side of honesty.
abb3w:
I can think of two examples where this would apply:
1) When Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity continuously argues that President Obama is the primary reason the 2009 deficit will reach record levels, we can easily establish this is a bald-faced lie given we can and do mathematically measure the elements comprising the deficit. In fact Obama and this Congress' policies since his inauguration contribute an almost insignificant share to this fiscal year's deficit (the federal government's fiscal year ends in Sept.). So currently, your high standard of knowledge is being continuously corrupted by those in the media and my remedy would cause them financial harm for their propaganda.
2) I used the term "know" loosely and not in the scientific perspective, where I'm careful to never use the words, "prove" or "know" (the latter I equate to 'understand', the previous to some level of certainty, e.g., 'reasonably certain' or 'moderately confident').
A good example of lying from a non-mathematical perspective would be Sarah Palin claiming that H.R. 3200 created 'death panels' where she framed her rhetoric in a manner explicitly and implicitly arguing that federal government panels would be created that would kill her father and her Down's Syndrome toddler and others like them. We "know" that no such panels were documented under this this bill nor is there any congressional records of such intentions. Whether Palin's statements were made out of ill-informed ignorance or flat-out dishonesty is irrelevant - she should be held financially accountable for asserting a fact in public she had failed to validate was true.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2009 12:11 PM
Sigmund,
I won't dispute the presence of that definition in your dictionary, but would add to it that in political philosophy the concept of what legitimacy means is still debated and not so clearly cut and dried. How does one know that the authority who makes the laws has legitimacy? If they do have legitimacy, is any law they make automatically legitimate? Most theorists would answer the latter question with lots of qualifiers, rather than just saying, "yes." So most theorists would argue that "law" is not synonymous with "legitimate."
Posted by: James Hanley | September 9, 2009 12:28 PM
Michael: I applaud your proposal to ensure full employment in the legal sector. Unfortunately, this appears to be the only positive. It is easy enough to find a convenient forum to bring suit in to get a favorable jury. In addition, this would open up all manner of circuses where "Showbiz Tonight" formats could cover all the "celebrity" trials. There's a reason I don't watch TV already.
Finally, your idea has been more or less tried in Britain and found wanting. What is truth, what is spinning, and when does it become a lie? Ugh.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 9, 2009 12:33 PM
"You cannot create or remove a right by passing a law."
I thought that is where they came from. Or do you think they come from god or something? The rights you have are whatever the government says your rights are. For example, in Great Britain you have the right to free medical care but in the US you don't have that right.
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | September 9, 2009 12:37 PM
If your version is true, Tilting At Windmills, then governments cannot ever be said to violate our rights if what they're doing is legal. Do you really believe that?
Posted by: Gretchen | September 9, 2009 12:43 PM
Gretchen: Since our rights come from our Constitution which the government can't easily change, you are mistaken. But suppose that a constitutional amendment was passed removing the first amendment, would you claim that you still had the freedom of speech? On what basis? I agree that people should have certain rights, but whether they have them or not is based on the law.
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | September 9, 2009 12:48 PM
I agree with Tilting at Windmills. 'Rights' as a term doesn't mean anything unless it is backed up by law.
Is this really such a controversial point?
Posted by: Sigmund | September 9, 2009 12:56 PM
Okay, explain to me the fundamental difference between saying "We have certain rights, but the government doesn't grant them. It may or may not acknowledge them," and "We should have certain rights, but the government may or may not grant them."
Posted by: Gretchen | September 9, 2009 1:00 PM
The notion that our rights are created through a scrap of paper is absurd. Rather, rights are nothing more than those behaviors that a given society's cats allow and wish to propagate. They are often benevolent Overlords it is true, but that could change if they could ever figure out how to use the can opener.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 9, 2009 1:09 PM
James Hanley:
Well, that would be true initially until the public square was modified, and actually I would find it greatly entertaining to see Limbaugh, Palin, O'Reilly, and Hannity under cross-examination for the lies they've spewed. In fact the most interesting trial transcripts I've ever read were the Kitzmiller v. Dover ones where they put the creationists and their expert witnesses under trial. Given the aforementioned lies are far more diverse than creationists, it should provide years of great entertainment and a ton of anecdotal examples of the harm they've caused. In fact the Dover trial format is a cousin to the model for what I'm talking about.
I'm not aware of the U.K.'s failure regarding my proposal; I am aware of their efforts to censor speech that was offensive, where I'm an absolutist in defending our individual right to be offensive.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2009 1:15 PM
I was referring to the lax rules governing defamation. That hasn't worked out so well.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 9, 2009 1:31 PM
Please excuse my last post mistakenly attributing James Hanley for kehrsam's rebuttal to one of my earlier posts. Both are two fellow commenters for whom I have the utmost respect.
I also continue to acknowledge that I'm tilting at windmills on this subject, though have yet to see an argument which has convinced me to adapt my point of view.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2009 1:31 PM
Sigmund and Tilting at Windmills,
You both appear to have a very different concept of 'rights' than the American ideal mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or human rights movements of all kinds throughout history. How could you ever make an argument for rights not already granted by the government. For example, try to imagine convincing the Saudi king that you have a right to free speech using your definition of 'right'.
Posted by: Schmeer | September 9, 2009 1:34 PM
kehrsam - I used to spend quite a bit of time in England and Scotland (and some in Ireland) a decade ago. I found their radio debates refreshing and informative (their music radio stations sucked which is why I listened to talk radio over there). Opponents were respectful, respectful of each other's opinions, and readily conceded the weaknesses of their own arguments while also confronting their opponent's strongest arguments.
Perhaps it did work?
In fact, my model for discourse when I posted my initial argument here were those debates I remember so vividly; most of which were arguments about the U.K. modifying their social services to either mimic the Scandinavian social models vs. the U.S. model.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2009 1:41 PM
Schmeer, I think you are mixing up 'ideals' (in which practically all of us agree), with 'rights'. I see 'rights' as a legal term that may or may not by synonymous with particular ideals (for instance the right to life). Sometimes, in some places the ideal is not legally respected.
I am Irish, but live in Stockholm. In my home country the government recently passed a law restricting free speech - the notorious blasphemy law. In this situation I would say that there is no right to free speech in Ireland even though free speech is an ideal I support.
The previous 'right' was in fact taken away by government legislation.
I would make the argument that this right should be restored by changing the law on blasphemy. This may indeed happen in time due to the fact that Ireland is a signatory to the European legislation that may force the issue.
"For example, try to imagine convincing the Saudi king that you have a right to free speech using your definition of 'right'."
I could argue to him that free speech is a valuable ideal that he should incorporate into the laws of his State.
And he would say, "Very interesting point of view. Off with his head"
What alternative scenario do you see?
Unless there is some legal force behind it the ideal is not going to become attainable.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 9, 2009 1:49 PM
Hm, is it really about offense and blasphemy laws or whatever?
I mean, in general, we usually prosecute that sort of thing either as promoting hatred based on race or Holocaust denial.
And with the people they actually do lock up, I can't say I'm against it.
(This cartoon is perhaps overdoing it a bit. The Arab European League is shooting the leg on which it stands, and make themselves look like batshit crazy anti-Semitic persons, so, any legal intervention will just make them into martyrs)
Posted by: Sara | September 9, 2009 3:00 PM
Sigmund,
I can appreciate the difference in your use of the word. I think the way you use 'ideal' clearly more closely matches my use of 'right'. Of course, I'm influenced by being an American and those founding documents of our government. Without asserting the existence of inallienalbe rights outside of the 'rights' established by the King's law, the American Revolution would not have happened as we know it.
Posted by: Schmeer | September 9, 2009 3:09 PM
Dude... Holocaust denial is not the same as the Mohammed cartoons. Not at all. The Mohammed cartoons were rude, disrespectful, and somewhat immature. Portraying Mohammed with a bomb on his head is an un-subtle statement about the prevalence of violent extremism in modern Islam, but it is not the same as saying all Muslims are terrorists or even extremists (which they obviously aren't).
Ironically, while many Muslims were outraged at the cartoons, most wrote angry letters and complained vocally, the tools of civilized outrage. But the extremists marched chanting for death and destruction... thus proving the point the cartoons were making.
To quote a principle of my partner's faith: if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. In other words, nothing and nobody deserve your uncritical, unswerving devotion.
Posted by: ABM | September 9, 2009 3:17 PM
ABM:
"Dude... Holocaust denial is not the same as the Mohammed cartoons. Not at all."
It doesn't really matter what we think of different forms of speech; the point is that, even if a viewpoint is offensive and completely baseless, as this cartoon and its message clearly is, arresting people for expressing it is absolutely unjustified.
Michael Heath:
Hypothetically speaking, would your proposal include the ability to sue those who promote alternative medicine and quackery of that nature? How would it affect the ability of companies to sell drugs and medicines without FDA approval?
Posted by: Sean Michael | September 9, 2009 4:56 PM
Sean Michael @ 36:
Yes in terms of providing more latitude for juries to determine whether someone was misrepresenting reality and you can empirically show resulting damage. But this isn't much different than the successful suits we've seen in various states against tobacco companies.
Sean Michael @ 36:
Only from the sense that if you misrepresent your product and someone sues you for damages showing just cause, a jury wouldn't be constrained like they are now in terms of setting damages.
I've done a lot of business in other countries and those experiences have taught me the value of individuals (and companies for that matter) being able to address grievances in court where the court and juries have wide latitudes to administrate and dispense justice.
People should be held accountable for their actions. You start getting pressure to lose freedom when even a handful start acting irresponsibly, e.g., school shootings increasing pressure to further restrict gun rights (an arguable position). So bring on absolute speech, but give me the chance to you sue your ass if you lie to me and others and I can show damage.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2009 5:22 PM
Who said anything about "successfully"? That wasn't in your original prescription, and I'm not sure how you could limit such lawsuits to only those you agree with.
However entertaining reading the transcripts of personal libel and slander lawsuits might be, they're financially ruinous for whichever party does not have substantial external backing, irrespective of the result, and the mere threat of litigation brought against a party of limited means is more than sufficient to chill behaviour (especially speech).
I really don't think this is a good solution...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | September 10, 2009 2:31 AM
Michael Heath: I have no idea how Ham could successfully sue a school board because it's teaching science
Brain Hertz: Who said anything about "successfully"?
Ding!
Posted by: abb3w | September 14, 2009 3:28 PM