Limits on Free Speech

February 5, 2006 6:56 AM

In Austria it against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. "But one can say anything about Islam and get away with it," observes Ehsan Ahrari of the Asia Times. As the editor of Jyllands Posten defends the publication of unflattering cartoons of the Mohammed as standing up for the values of “free speech”, laws in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Switzerland make it a criminal offence to deny the Holocaust in public. Germany's parliament passed legislation in 1985, making it a crime to deny the extermination of the Jews. In 1994, the law was tightened. Now, anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than the imposition of a fine. Should holocaust denial be a crime? Do laws against Holocaust denial make Western defense of freedom of speech look hollow? (Related discussion here.)
posted by three blind mice (141 comments total)

They can do what they want in Austria. These laws are still on the books because they still have a lot of Nazis around. However, I think free speech is not so scary or dangerous as to bring the Nazis back in Austria. Nevertheless, in some parts of the World declaiming the Holocaust is tantamount to screaming fire in a theater.
posted by caddis at 7:10 AM on February 5, 2006

*looks around*

*doesn't see any Westerners burning down the embassies of Holocaust deniers*

*goes back to sleep*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:10 AM on February 5, 2006

I don't want to piss anyone off or anything.
But, are muslims stupid or something?
posted by obeygiant at 7:14 AM on February 5, 2006

What's wrong with saying bad things about Islam? As far as I understand it, you can still say bad things about Isreal, about Judaism as a religion, and so on. Maybe I'm wrong, either way this desire Muslims have not to be criticized is simply idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 7:19 AM on February 5, 2006

I don't want to piss anyone off or anything.
But, are muslims stupid or something?

Wow, that's a sweeping generalisation. There are pretty much stupid people of all denominations and nationalities. There are also plenty of ignorant people...
posted by Meccabilly at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2006

Yes, Holocaust denial should be legal, and I say that as a descendent of victims.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 7:25 AM on February 5, 2006

People who say ignorant and offensive words shouldn't be locked up or otherwise punished by the state. They should be humiliated and have their ignorance laid bare.
posted by Gator at 7:25 AM on February 5, 2006

All religions are fundamentally stupid. Some may be nicer than others but that doesn't make them any less stupid.
posted by srboisvert at 7:26 AM on February 5, 2006

All denials of religion are fundamentally stupid. Some may be nicer than others but that doesn't make them any less stupid.
posted by caddis at 7:32 AM on February 5, 2006

The best response to bad speech is not censorship, but humiliation.
posted by EarBucket at 7:33 AM on February 5, 2006

After we stick all the Muslims in gas ovens, we'll feel bad and pass laws to protect them.
posted by soiled cowboy at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2006

Of course it should be legal. It's a great way to tell if somebody's stupid.
posted by wakko at 7:45 AM on February 5, 2006

So...every time someone gets irritated by something someone else is saying, we need a law to stop it? Or is it just when they're really, really irritated? Maybe we could count the number of embassy fires it generates? Sounds like a recipe for more unrest to me. And we're trusting politicians to be the arbiters, keeping their eyes on the outrage-o-meter™, to determine who should be gagged?

Ultimately these speech restrictions will cause far more damage to an open society than the speech itself. (Which is not to say that this kind of speech doesn't cause damage, but if our society is so fragile as to be overturned by the statements of a few loonies, we are well and truly fucked anyway.)
posted by sriracha at 7:45 AM on February 5, 2006

I don't want to piss anyone off or anything.
But, are muslims stupid or something?


Not all of 'em, just the ones torching the embassies.
posted by alumshubby at 7:47 AM on February 5, 2006

sounds to me that people attempting to justify the riots going on right now are trying to spin this into an accusation that jews are getting special treatment that muslims aren't

i'm getting the impression that a good many people in our world are insane
posted by pyramid termite at 7:53 AM on February 5, 2006

The criminalization of denying the Shoah is a key to understanding the ongoing tabooization of the Third Reich in Germany and Austria.
Whatever the merit of this idea though, I dont see where the immediate connection to the Mohammed caricatures is (in my opinion freedom of speech is much more threatened in other cases in Germany). Why make the connection here?
As if the relationship wasnt antagonistic enough already.
posted by thehippe at 7:54 AM on February 5, 2006

thanks pyramid - my thought much clearly put
posted by thehippe at 7:55 AM on February 5, 2006

In the context of the Mohammed pics, this is a very good question to ask. The answer seems obvious to me: free speech should never, ever be restricted, no matter how offensive you find the content.

What I really fear, though, is that people will use this as a precedent to shut down anti-religious cartoons too. It ties into that whole bullshit argument about freedoms including 'freedoms from'... as in, freedom from want, freedom from fear. Total crap, an abuse of language, and not related to real freedom at all. But some people are still misled by those arguments.

So, I'm worried. I hope the Europeans will keep their heads on straight. Losing some embassies and some trade is much less costly than losing the right to criticize.
posted by Malor at 7:57 AM on February 5, 2006

From the first link:

In Austria, it is against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. But one can say anything about Islam and get away with it.

It's important to notice the disanalogy between denying the holocaust and drawing a satirical cartoon about a religious figure.
I don't think any of the satirical cartoons were meant to assert that (for example) Muhammad and his followers didn't make the Hijra in CE 622. That sort of assertion would be tantamount to Holocaust denial.

From later on in the first link:

Thus it is not enough to couch the whole argument about drawing caricatures of the Prophet under the rubric of freedom of speech, and thereby dismiss (or even be derisive about) the religious sensitivities of millions of Muslims. Why is it that the golden rule related to the insanity (or illegality) of yelling "fire" in a packed theater is not being applied here? That, in the final analysis, is the question the Western zealots of freedom of speech should answer.

I'm not sure I'm a "Western zealot of freedom," but let me take a stab at it. Again, the situations are not analogous. The yelling of "fire!" in a crowded theatre could very well cause danger and panic -- panic resulting from fear of injury. A satirical cartoon representing Muhammad shouldn't cause the same sort of panic. No one reads the cartoon and fears being burned (unless, of course, they happen to be reading it in the Danish Embassy in Beirut). What might be closer to being analogous to the cartoon representing Muhammad in the Western context is a cartoon which is defamatory of a certain individual. I don't know much about the law on this matter, but it seems that free speech which is protected doesn't cross the line into slander and libel. On this count, it seems odd to say that speech could defame a historical religious figure -- who would take legal action in this case?... But in any case, cases of libel are decided by the judiciary -- which is supposed to be completely independent of any religious organization in most Western countries. So it seems that cases of libel (in the West) would (or at least should) be decided without the influence of fervent religious conviction. Whether such dispassionate legal decisions (the availability of which depends essentially on the separation of church and state) are a real possibility in the Muslim world seems to be a fundamental question.
posted by Wash Jones at 8:02 AM on February 5, 2006

It's much easier to defend freedom of speech as an absolute value, if it actually IS an absolute value. That's why you Americans tend to deal with fewer of these conundrums. Freedom of expression is only tolerated in Canada and Europe, at the pleasure of the state. Unfortunately an apparent good like outlawing Holocaust denial opens the door for people to walk down the streets of modern cities in the 21st century carrying placards that read "Butcher All Unbelievers". The exception to the rule collapses the rule.
posted by slatternus at 8:09 AM on February 5, 2006

This is a really bizarre comparison and therefore a silly question. A more relevant comparison would be to link Holocaust denial with Crusades denial, or something along those lines.

I would not support any law against Holocause denial here but not every country is the United States. Germany and Austria have these laws as a result of the atrocities those nations committed. Austria, in particular, has never properly acknowledged its major role in the Holocaust, and there are a lot of real Nazis still around.
posted by spira at 8:11 AM on February 5, 2006

You do not have the right to not be offended.
That said, if you do something with the intent of offending violent people, you also do not have the right to not be killed by those violent people.
posted by nightchrome at 8:14 AM on February 5, 2006

holocaust denial is not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater ... it's more like wearing a t-shirt saying "i'm an idiot" in a theater

i feel that it's better to have the idiots speaking out openly so we know who they are and can tell them what idiots they are before we turn our backs on them
posted by pyramid termite at 8:18 AM on February 5, 2006

Hey, here's a possible compromise : how about the Western world promises to prosecute everyone drawing offensive cartoons if the Middle East promises to prosecutes everyone offensively burning flags (or embassies) and screaming "Death to {America | Britain | Country Of Choice}!" etc? Perhaps if we 're all willing to exchange freedoms, that could be the first step toward a lasting peace ...

(Yes, I am being sarcastic...)
posted by kaemaril at 8:20 AM on February 5, 2006

That said, if you do something with the intent of offending violent people, you also do not have the right to not be killed by those violent people.

Um, isn't why we have laws against murder?
posted by Wash Jones at 8:21 AM on February 5, 2006

what pyramid termite said.


There will come a point when these laws on holocaust denial will likely have to be rediscussed in those countries. I disagree with them in principle, and in practice when it comes to hugely disproportionate sentences like 20 years in jail, which is also hugely backfiring and increasingly so; so ideally those laws shouldn't exist or be judged necessary; but it's up to those countries to debate how to deal with that, and it's not like these laws were thought up just to please those whining holocaust-profiteering Jews as those deniers would imply.

But. There's never been laws forbidding satire of Jews, or Judaism, or Israel. So the analogy between satire of religion or politics and nazi apology/advocacy is not exactly kosher.
posted by funambulist at 8:22 AM on February 5, 2006

In Austria, it is against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. But one can say anything about Islam and get away with it.

Well, I don't really like any restriction on free expression, but denying that the Holocaust took place is a factual statement that is demonstrably incorrect. The cartoons stake out an editorial opinion (not a statement of fact) that there is some connection between Islam and terrorism, which is at the very least not demonstrably incorrect. The two are not the same.

that freedom might even be regarded as absolute, thereby allowing an individual to insult even someone's faith

Or their mother, or their country, or their children or sexual prowess or taste in automobiles or anything else. That's what it means.

Why is it that the golden rule related to the insanity (or illegality) of yelling "fire" in a packed theater is not being applied here?

You don't shout fire in a crowded theater because reasonable people, fearing that they are in immediate danger of a very painful death, might well injure each other trying to leave. The law doesn't allow you to ban things that unreasonable people might over-react to because they're offended. The analogy doesn't hold because those (hopefully few) Muslims up in arms over this cannot reasonably be fearing for their lives, but are simply offended. The analogy doesn't hold because the (hopefully few) Muslims up in arms over this aren't injuring people inadvertantly or through callous carelessness in an attempt to escape from danger, but rather are engaging in direct, plain old violence against people who are not even responsible for their perceived slight.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:23 AM on February 5, 2006

This is a really bizarre comparison and therefore a silly question. A more relevant comparison would be to link Holocaust denial with Crusades denial, or something along those lines.

The issue is not truth or accuracy, spira. Mohammed was portrayed as a pedofile and a terrorist in some of the cartoons which to many Muslims is probably considered a denial of the truth.

Not everyone agrees on these things. The issue is the freedom to express opinion in public. It smacks of hypocrisy for Europeans to hide behind freedom of speech values in this case, whilst supporting laws that criminalize speech in other cases.

At the very least, to the Muslim world, it would seem to me, this affair appears as just more of the West's double standard of behaviour.
posted by three blind mice at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2006

nightchrome : That said, if you do something with the intent of offending violent people, you also do not have the right to not be killed by those violent people.

I think you'll find many societies would tend to disagree with you.
posted by kaemaril at 8:28 AM on February 5, 2006

This is a really bizarre comparison and therefore a silly question. A more relevant comparison would be to link Holocaust denial with Crusades denial, or something along those lines.

The issue is not truth or accuracy, spira. Mohammed was portrayed as a pedofile and a terrorist in some of the cartoons which to many Muslims is probably considered a denial of the truth.

The issue is the freedom to express opinion in public, not the accuracy of the opinion. It smacks of hypocrisy for Europeans to hide behind freedom of speech values in this case, whilst supporting laws (an probably sensible ones at that) that criminalize speech in other cases.

At the very least, to the Muslim world, it would seem to me, this affair appears as just more of the West's double standard of behaviour.
posted by three blind mice at 8:29 AM on February 5, 2006

One has to do with the actions of a country and its government, the other with a religion. Holocaust denial prohibitions make sense when promulgated by the governments that "allowed" it to happen in the first place. It's a matter of national shame and responsibility, and the government wants to do what it can to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Even given that it's demonstrable and provable fact, I'm not sure that such laws would make sense in other countries.

Trying to require that the rest of the world adhere to your religious restrictions and respect your sensitivities puts your religion in opposition to governmental principals in many locations, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There are always limits to freedoms, but religious restrictions aren't generally one of them. The thing about governments is that they have the right to pass and enforce laws which apply to all their citizens. Religions can pass "laws" but have no right to enforce them.
posted by JParker at 8:34 AM on February 5, 2006

I'd like to point out that the cartoonist succeeded in his mission. If the New York Times were to publish a cartoon of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson getting it on while wearing cowboy hats, with a naked Jesus watching, you better believe a whole bunch of Southern Baptists would get mad.

Would they burn down any buildings? Probably not, given different institutional contexts and so on. Does this mean that Fundamentalist Christians are less violent than fundamentalist Muslims? No. Does this excuse rioting in Beirut and elsewhere? No. Did the cartoonist have a right to publish this? Yes. Was it smart? No.

Never get into a pissing match with a skunk.
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:34 AM on February 5, 2006

The point of that last post being we need to distinguish between the right to publish the cartoon (extant), the right to protest (also extant) and the moral values involved of trying to start a fight (not a good call) and of burning other people's stuff down (even worse call).
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:36 AM on February 5, 2006

three blind mice: Mohammed was portrayed as a pedophile in one of the fake cartoons that were never published by the Danish papers.
posted by funambulist at 8:40 AM on February 5, 2006

This is a really bizarre comparison

One is blaspheming a religion. The other is revisionist history regarding a brutal event. The argument this post posits is fundamentally flawed.

I compare the Islamic cartoon protest to the occasionally draconian French language laws of Quebec - they are clearly in violation of the spirit of free speech, but in practice it may be a good idea to grant some leeway.
posted by CynicalKnight at 8:41 AM on February 5, 2006

The issue is not truth or accuracy, spira. Mohammed was portrayed as a pedofile and a terrorist in some of the cartoons which to many Muslims is probably considered a denial of the truth.

Mohammad was never portrayed as a pedophile in any of the cartoons published in the Danish paper. As I understand it, though, he did take a child bride. Perhaps they should burn down the embassies of any country that publishes the Quran?
posted by billysumday at 8:44 AM on February 5, 2006

When the Washington Times published a series of cartoons depicting blacks as gorillas and Martin Luther King as a rapist, no one was upset. Because here in the west we believe free speech means that no one can find it irritating. I didn't see any african americans rioting. Sure I mean, at first it was just protests and stuff. But then, when the NYT and couple of other national newspapers published the same cartoons, no one saw this as an even bigger insult. They all shook hands and toasted the freedoms offered. Because we all know, those freedoms mean we can never complain about the content published.

thank you, god bless
posted by mulligan at 8:46 AM on February 5, 2006

Mohammed was portrayed as a pedophile in one of the fake cartoons that were never published by the Danish papers.

Islamic doctrine has it that Mohammed took a child bride.

Do you have some other useful term for people who have sex with children?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:47 AM on February 5, 2006

mulligan: 1, straw man: 0

Congrats!
posted by billysumday at 8:49 AM on February 5, 2006

Ah, jparker's post nails it.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:50 AM on February 5, 2006

"Germany and Austria have these laws as a result of the atrocities those nations committed"

Stupidity must float because it always seems to come to the surface at times like these. Germany and Austria have these laws because politicians want to get re-elected and such inane pandering will garnish a few swing votes while not changing the 'hard liners' voting position. (I've seen George Bush oversee this ever expanding government and deficit while my conservative friends say, "I'm voting Republican". They'll vote that way regardless.)

I've just had about all I can take of Islamics. They continue to over-react to any suggestion their religion is doing anything more than spreading peace and love. And their over-reactions are all too often violent and hateful.

Just as I abhore the Bush administration for not accepting that our actions create certain "perceptions" to our Islamic and middle eastern friends, I can't tolerate the Muslim community for suggesting we should see them as a peace loving folk when this is the type of response we get to a friggin cartoon. Where is the Islamic leadership? Why do they not decry the evil messages constantly being presented to non-Islamics? At this point Radical Islam IS Islam. The true message of the religion has been hijacked by a few, and allowed to be corrupted by the masses.

They sure are making Bush's job easy.
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:50 AM on February 5, 2006

Islamic doctrine has it that Mohammed took a child bride. Do you have some other useful term for people who have sex with children?

Well as this happened in the 8th century CE PeterMcDermott, it does seem that applying 21st century morality might be bit of revisionist history, but if if makes you feel self-righteous then by all means.
posted by three blind mice at 8:56 AM on February 5, 2006

Well as this happened in the 8th century CE PeterMcDermott, it does seem that applying 21st century morality might be bit of revisionist history, but if if makes you feel self-righteous then by all means.

That is by far the best sarcastic line of the thread. You should have put a ;) at the end.
posted by billysumday at 8:58 AM on February 5, 2006

They sure are making Bush's job easy.

And so are you j.p. hung. You statement that "radical islam IS islam" plays precisely into the Bush administration's much desired demonization of the guys who own the oil and threaten Israel. Let's just blame Iran and get on with the war plans.
posted by three blind mice at 9:00 AM on February 5, 2006

PeterMcDermott: um, I was just pointing out that tbm was wrong about saying some of the cartoons depicted M. as a pedo.

I'm so not getting into whether he actually was a pedo. I don't want to offend anyone! Opinions? I don't have opinions. I don't want no trouble. Sure I have freedom of speech but doesn't mean I have to use it. It's best spared for the really important stuff, like, who's going to win the Oscars.
posted by funambulist at 9:01 AM on February 5, 2006

Personally, I think that the German government should be issuing extradition proceedings against the Iranian government.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:02 AM on February 5, 2006

...this affair appears as just more of the West's double standard of behavior

"What do you mean, 'we', paleface?"

Can we please not talk about the 'West'? Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Switzerland are not 'the West'. In fact, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic are considered Eastern Europe.

Nor is this the problem of the Americas, the anglophone world in general, Scandinavia, or the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking nations, all of which are also 'the West'. Leave us out of it, please. Come up with another term for this group of nations with speech codes.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:04 AM on February 5, 2006

So did child brides bleed a little less when adult men fucked them in the eighth century, three blind mice?

Or how about those modern Muslims that are following in Mohammed's path?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2006

Um, isn't why we have laws against murder?
and
I think you'll find many societies would tend to disagree with you.

That won't make you any less dead.
Yes, you have freedom of speech and can say what you will.
But that doesn't mean you won't suffer consequences from having said things that incite others to violence against you, even if the law is on your side.
A lot of people these days seem to be using cries of "freedom of speech" to hide behind, when faced with the consequences of the things they say.
posted by nightchrome at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2006

Here is the Wikipedia section on the child-bride controversy of Aisha. I'm much more interested in the Holocaust-denial and whether-it-should-be-illegal part of this discussion, but we must let the thread flow where it will...
posted by Gator at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2006

Mohammed took a child bride

well, since Miriam (aka Yeshua's mother) was probably 14 when she got pregnant, that makes either St. Joseph or God a paedophile, too
posted by matteo at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2006

I dont think mohammed will be winning any oscars.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:08 AM on February 5, 2006

Oops. Wrong link for modern Muslims.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:09 AM on February 5, 2006

Well as this happened in the 8th century CE PeterMcDermott, it does seem that applying 21st century morality might be bit of revisionist history, but if makes you feel self-righteous then by all means.

So does that make you a moral relativist or not? Is it OK for people in Arab states to take Child Brides today, or do you believe that morality is constant in space but not in time?
posted by delmoi at 9:11 AM on February 5, 2006

Three blind mice, your name is becomming almost self-fufilling. If you read my post, I clearly point out that it is the Islamic leadership that is not doing enough (if anything) to sway public opinion the other way. The statement that "Radical Islam IS Islam" is not far fetched when you realize the failings of the Islamic leadership. This isn't about what Bush wants me to believe but it is more about the face of modern Islam.
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:13 AM on February 5, 2006

that makes either St. Joseph or God a paedophile, too

While I don't care one way or another what people say about either St. Joseph or God, I do feel obliged to point out that there is an order of difference between sex with post-pubescent females and sex with nine year old children.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:20 AM on February 5, 2006

not to take away from debating the pedophilic underpinnings of the islamic faith, but from pyramid termite post

holocaust denial is not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater ... it's more like wearing a t-shirt saying "i'm an idiot" in a theater

It depends on the theater, pyramid. In countries that are threatened by the possible political legitimacy of certain beliefs (e.g. a Nazi senator in Germany) then the context is quite different. In the US, we allowed a Ku Klux Klan member to run for Congress. Can you really argue that that didn't help to culturally legitimize the historical actions of the Klan, for those who might otherwise have been more ambivalent?

>i feel that it's better to have the idiots speaking out openly so we know who they are and can tell them what idiots they are before we turn our backs on them

Look, at one point, over 70% of Americans believed that Iraq had direct ties to 9/11, and voted accordingly, and endorsed military action with the same fervor, all because some idiots spoke out openly. Idiots don't necessarily speak like idiots, and it doesn't matter who turns their back on them. It matters who doesn't.

If you believe that advertising works -- and Google's stock price is the index of that belief -- then you believe that what some people say can affect what other people believe and do.

You can defend denying the holocaust, or ridiculing religious icons, as necessary to preserving any form of unpopular speech, slippery slope, etc.

But you can't deny that those forms of speech don't have serious consequences, just because you happen to call them idiots and turn your back.
posted by cloudscratcher at 9:24 AM on February 5, 2006

PeterMcDermott : "So did child brides bleed a little less when adult men fucked them in the eighth century, three blind mice?"

Mr. McDermott, one has to get amazed by you grasp of History and Culture - I think extending the attack on any form of cultural difference from space to time is a marvelous idea. So we can measure all cultures at all times using the (obviously perfect) Modern Western (or the even more perfect American) culture as a rule. It won't be very enlightening but at least it will be funny.
posted by nkyad at 9:26 AM on February 5, 2006

But that doesn't mean you won't suffer consequences from having said things that incite others to violence against you, even if the law is on your side.

it just makes you more brave for speaking out and putting your life on the line. i don't understand your point, nightchrome...


salman rushdie, his novel "the satanic verses" and the resulting book burnings, firebombings and fatwa all directly apply to this situation.
posted by cgs at 9:29 AM on February 5, 2006

I do feel obliged to point out that there is an order of difference between sex with post-pubescent females and sex with nine year old children.

Thanks PeterMcDermott. I never would have known that without your help. I won't ask how you gained this knowledge, but I'll take your word for it.

I do, however, think that getting married at the age of 14 - in the 8th century - was not considered unusual or "wrong" according to 8th century morals.

If you read my post, I clearly point out that it is the Islamic leadership that is not doing enough (if anything) to sway public opinion the other way.

There are a billion Muslims j.p. hung. I don't have any idea what is being preached by every Imam and I suspect neither do you. Both of us, however, see a great deal of the few hundred zealots.
posted by three blind mice at 9:32 AM on February 5, 2006

delmoi : "So does that make you a moral relativist or not? Is it OK for people in Arab states to take Child Brides today, or do you believe that morality is constant in space but not in time?"

I believe the correct term would be "cultural relativist", but your accusation is naive - cultural relativism does not condone with other people's suffering. The only people who use cultural relativism as an excuse to support the barbaric Saudi regime or the savage treatment of females by African Muslins are the same old bigots who think an White man life is worth hundreds of Arab or Mexican lives.

Why would you think a modern social sciences concept should be uninformed by all advances from other sciences? Because we now know children below a certain age are greatly damaged (both physically and psychological) by having sex with adults. Comparing this to the state of knowledge and culture in the 7th or 8th century is ignorance. At that point in time even the very concept of a "child" was completely different from what we think now (and that applies to Europe too). If you think a child is nothing more than a small adult, there is absolutely no moral constraint to treat the child as an adult (capable of consent, even).
posted by nkyad at 9:36 AM on February 5, 2006

It surprises me that we're apparently talking about freedom of speech like it's this one, well-understood thing that we keep in a box and can take out and consult whenever the need arises. Freedom of speech is a complex issue, always evolving, and what constitutes free speech today may be illegal later today. Even more than that, it's not only a complex legal issue, but often a lofty and unattainable ideal, even in those countries that claim to champion it on the cutting edge. Imagine how well your freedoms of speech would have been protected from the general public if you'd been chanting "Yay for the Muslim terrorists!" in Times Square on 9/12. Holocaust Denial should be illegal. It's factually inaccurate and is used as a platform by extremist organizations, some of which are or have been involved in violent antisocial activities. If it helps, think of it less as an issue related to freedom of speech, and more as a way of being able to prosecute members of certain violent activist groups. In Australia we also have anti-vilification, or hate-speech, laws. We recognise that freedom of speech only takes you so far, and that there's such a thing as obligation of speech. It's as flawed a system as exists in any other country, but it's an equally valid ideal. Particularly when you might well have extremists preaching revolution in your own country. For example, last year we deported an American Muslim Cleric for preaching Jihad to Australian Muslim youths. Your mileage may vary on whether or not that was a just or equitable thing, but I'd rather not have anyone hiding behind freedom of speech while telling a group that it's their holy duty to kill people I care about.
posted by planetthoughtful at 9:41 AM on February 5, 2006

"Both of us, however, see a great deal of the few hundred zealots."

What's your point? I could see if this was only happening in America then it might somehow buttress your Bush doctrine but it's happening all over the world. I doubt the world press is "in on it" with the Americans. So is it for us to investigate the "true" intentions of Islam or is it for actual practitioners to recognize they've got a serious problem and start speaking up?

In the end, it's a cartoon. Offensive? Sure. Poor judgement? Yes. Should someone be admonished? Why not? But to even suggest that violent reprisals to a cartoon are to be 'expected' and are 'warranted' is sheer idiocy in a civilized society. Sticks and stones, ack, ack, ack.

So if we've decided this is, in fact, no longer a civilized society, what the fuck is everyone going on about?
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:52 AM on February 5, 2006

Because we now know children below a certain age are greatly damaged (both physically and psychological) by having sex with adults.

Do we? Do we actually know that all sexual contact between an adult an a child is physically and psychological harmful?
posted by delmoi at 9:55 AM on February 5, 2006

Thanks PeterMcDermott. I never would have known that without your help.

I'm glad I can be of service, five fresh fish.

I do, however, think that getting married at the age of 14 - in the 8th century - was not considered unusual or "wrong" according to 8th century morals.

Getting married at the age of 14 is barely worthy of comment today. If that's all that the fuss was about, there wouldn't *be * any fuss.

But if you read the links provided, you'll see that there's a strong argument that the child was actually nine, not 14.

Because we now know children below a certain age are greatly damaged (both physically and psychological) by having sex with adults.

And in back in the 8th century, adults had no way whatsoever of knowing these things. Because pre-pubescent children just didn't scream or cry or bleed when they were penetrated by adult males in those days.

What a *good* job we're all so enlightened today...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:55 AM on February 5, 2006

It surprises me that we're apparently talking about freedom of speech like it's this one, well-understood thing that we keep in a box and can take out and consult whenever the need arises.

Well, planetthoughtful, in this case it appears that "freedom of speech" is being removed from the box - not to tell people it's their holy duty to kill people - but as a general defense for some pretty tasteless and offensive scribblings.

I do believe this provides traction in the Muslim world for the idea that there is a double standard in many European countries. The fact remains that anything that dilutes the Holocaust brand is criminal behaviour but the Islam brand can be devalued at will.
posted by three blind mice at 9:57 AM on February 5, 2006

I'm surprised no one's mentioned that Americans aren't allowed to express a desire to kill the president in public, either.

Anyway, I think it's disingenuous to bring up the holocaust denial laws in this context. Those laws are clearly in place to prevent a country from having any excuse to presume it didn't do things that it did. I'm presuming the implication here is that the western world is particularly Jew-loving, which is telling of the mindset from which this discussion springs. Nobody passed any laws saying people couldn't write about how corrupt and/or funny Judaism is.

That said, those cartoons (at least, from what I've seen) were appalling.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:00 AM on February 5, 2006

But to even suggest that violent reprisals to a cartoon are to be 'expected' and are 'warranted' is sheer idiocy in a civilized society. Sticks and stones, ack, ack, ack.

I'll buy the Bibles, you buy the kindling. Let's both take a drive into the American Baptist heartland and see how many we can burn before the reprisals begin.

I mean, it's only a book. It's only paper.
posted by planetthoughtful at 10:03 AM on February 5, 2006

The fact remains that anything that dilutes the Holocaust brand is criminal behaviour but the Islam brand can be devalued at will.

God, you are a sick human being. The Holocaust "brand"? And what, pray tell, are people who speak up against Holocaust denials selling? Unbelievable.

As far as the Islam "brand" being devalued, I'd say that the burning of embassies in Damascus (and now in Beirut) is doing far more damage to the "brand" than a few cartoons in a Danish paper.
posted by billysumday at 10:07 AM on February 5, 2006

cgs, one man's "bravado" is another man's "seeking out trouble" I guess.
posted by nightchrome at 10:08 AM on February 5, 2006

But if you read the links provided, you'll see that there's a strong argument that the child was actually nine, not 14.

Show us on the doll where the Prophet touched you.
posted by three blind mice at 10:09 AM on February 5, 2006

I'll buy the Bibles, you buy the kindling. Let's both take a drive into the American Baptist heartland and see how many we can burn before the reprisals begin.

And yet another straw man goes down for the count!
posted by billysumday at 10:10 AM on February 5, 2006

"I do believe this provides traction in the Muslim world for the idea that there is a double standard in many European countries."

..and if that's what the Muslim community takes from this then they are far worse off than I imagined. Shit, there is a double standard in most families, that doesn't give people the right to call for the murder of their relatives. I'm not terribly familiar with the tenants of Islam but I'd like to know the part of the Kuran that says something about being a thin-skinned wuss who should burn buildings because he can't take an insensitive and assholish cartoon.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:11 AM on February 5, 2006

And yet another straw man goes down for the count!

No, but thanks for... Actually, did you say anything relevant?
posted by planetthoughtful at 10:13 AM on February 5, 2006

I still can't shake the feeling that three blind mice doesn't realize that the most offensive of the cartoons being distributed throughout the Mideast were not published in the Danish paper (or other European papers) but were created by a few imams and distributed along with the cartoons from the paper.
posted by billysumday at 10:13 AM on February 5, 2006

planetthoughtful:

I thought your first comment was really... thoughtful, actually. But your comment about bringing Bibles down to the Southern US and burning them in front of people is a straw man. Great rhetorical trick but complete bullshit. No one burned Qurans on the streets of Gaza. Not even fucking close.
posted by billysumday at 10:15 AM on February 5, 2006

The Holocaust "brand"?

The impact on "free speech" that Holocaust denial laws impose are very similar to those imposed by Trademark law. Brands are diluted when they are associated with negative images and the law imposes rather strict restrictions on "free speech" when trademarks are inolved. Western countries also accept these types of laws as reasonable constraints on speech.

As far as the Islam "brand" being devalued, I'd say that the burning of embassies in Damascus (and now in Beirut) is doing far more damage to the "brand" than a few cartoons in a Danish paper.

Agreed, but this isn't really what we're talking about, is it? We talking about using a rather absolutist defintion of free speech as a defense to publish definitely offensive and perhaps inaccurate cartoons of Mohammed.
posted by three blind mice at 10:17 AM on February 5, 2006

Show us on the doll where the Prophet touched you.

Hey, I don't care that Muhammed liked to diddle little girls.

I just don't wanna let you get away with pretending he wasn't a nonce is all.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:18 AM on February 5, 2006

I think extending the attack on any form of cultural difference from space to time is a marvelous idea. So we can measure all cultures at all times using the (obviously perfect) Modern Western (or the even more perfect American) culture as a rule. It won't be very enlightening but at least it will be funny.

I haven't seen anyone claiming that the West is perfect or that there aren't ongoing and widespread abuses.

However, there are a number of developments over the past few hundred years in the area of human rights that have probably led to a great number of people living better lives than they otherwise would have.

And yeah, I think the idea of consent in marriage and the concept of woman-as-human-not-property is something that is demonstrably and objectively better in the human rights area, thanks.
posted by theorique at 10:19 AM on February 5, 2006

@billysunday: my point was to extrapolate an act considered blasphemous by many Muslims, to an act that would be considered blasphemous by many Christians; and my expected outcomes of both. I was probably too oblique, but ffs, it's 4:20am here and I have a job interview at 9 and sweet-religious-figure I wish I could sleep.
posted by planetthoughtful at 10:19 AM on February 5, 2006

billysumday,

Hi, can you please explain what makes my comment a strawman. If it really was a strawman, it will help me to avoid making the same mistake again. thanks
posted by mulligan at 10:19 AM on February 5, 2006

We talking about using a rather absolutist defintion of free speech as a defense to publish definitely offensive and perhaps inaccurate cartoons of Mohammed.

You want laws against the publication of anything offensive?
posted by Hildegarde at 10:22 AM on February 5, 2006

my point was to extrapolate an act considered blasphemous by many Muslims, to an act that would be considered blasphemous by many Christians

Interesting how your extrapolation has to go far as to include the burning of the most revered text of a religion, in the heart of the most fundamentalist of areas.
posted by billysumday at 10:22 AM on February 5, 2006

Hey, I don't care that Muhammed liked to diddle little girls. I just don't wanna let you get away with pretending he wasn't a nonce is all.

If you say it is so, then it must be so.
posted by three blind mice at 10:23 AM on February 5, 2006

You want laws against the publication of anything offensive?

Read the thread from the beginning.
posted by three blind mice at 10:24 AM on February 5, 2006

If you say it is so, then it must be so.

It's not me who say's so, it's his nine year old wife, Aisha.

Was she lying?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:26 AM on February 5, 2006

tbm, it seems that you think the holocaust denial laws are in place because holocaust denial is offensive. That's simply not the case.

The better argumentis that the Danish cartoons ought to be viewed as hate speech; that would have more resonance and be much more logical. Dragging the holocaust into this argument is just petty, lame, and frankly anti-semitic.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:29 AM on February 5, 2006

anti-semetic? Damn, you were doing good up till then. You may have an argument that the cartoon is 'hate-speech', but defined by who? What is the criteria for actual 'hate speech' in a free society? There is no central scrutinizer. Either way, it doesn't justify the juvenile reaction of those who continue to take backward steps within their religious lives.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:35 AM on February 5, 2006

It's not me who say's so, it's his nine year old wife, Aisha.

Was she lying?

I don't care if she was doggystyle. AFAIK, Mohammed was not considered a pedofile by his contemporaries and I believe it is revsionist history to portray him as such.
posted by three blind mice at 10:35 AM on February 5, 2006

Every religion has their terrorists, Muslim terrorists just have the most press at the moment. I understand Islams desire to distance themselves from terror rather than let the press continue to link them together. It is a grave misunderstanding of the religion and one that far too many people continue to believe.

In 50 years many Americans wouldn't be too thrilled about people denying 9/11 either (and yes this is just as idiotic as denying the holocaust - but this really isn't the point) and it wouldn't surprise me to see people trying to classify such a statement as "hate speech" and thus not covered by the 1st amendment.

Maybe that is how Muslims feel about that press - that it is a form of hate speech - and they feel that it shouldn't be allowed.

*shrugs*
posted by jopreacher at 10:37 AM on February 5, 2006

Dragging the holocaust into this argument is just petty, lame, and frankly anti-semitic.

Hildegard, just to be clear, Ehsan Ahrari of the Asia Times made this association. I am just debating it.
posted by three blind mice at 10:39 AM on February 5, 2006

I'm not retracting the antisemitism remark. The presumption that Jews are being coddled by the Western world certainly has its roots in something highly unpleasant.

And I think there's a strong argument to be made that those cartoons are contibuting to a hateful environment for Muslims in Europe (and in North America, for that matter). And hate speech defined by whom? By the countries in which the cartoons are being published, that's who. Muslims are being demonized the world over right now, and I'm not at all surprised to be seeing this kind of protest over those awful cartoons. Some of the comments in this thread are just more evidence that people are increasingly equating certain abhorent behaviours with Islam in general, which is unfair. More people need to stand up in defence of ordinary Muslims, particularly thinking non-Muslims.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:43 AM on February 5, 2006

I'm well aware of that, tbm.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:43 AM on February 5, 2006

delmoi : "Do we? Do we actually know that all sexual contact between an adult an a child is physically and psychological harmful?"

The qualifier you introduced ("all") dismisses any hope of neutral discussion on this point - I haven't used "all" because no scientific study worth reading will extrapolate its findings in whatever area to an unqualified "all". Pay attention.

PeterMcDermott : "And in back in the 8th century, adults had no way whatsoever of knowing these things. Because pre-pubescent children just didn't scream or cry or bleed when they were penetrated by adult males in those days."

And you certainly know for a fact that Mohammed had sex with the child in question immediately after their marriage, right? The concept of convenience and political marriages never crossed your mind? And the fact that in many of those marriages the husband waited until the girl in question menstruated can be safely ignored for the sake of the argument too, right?

theorique : "I haven't seen anyone claiming that the West is perfect or that there aren't ongoing and widespread abuses.

"However, there are a number of developments over the past few hundred years in the area of human rights that have probably led to a great number of people living better lives than they otherwise would have.

"And yeah, I think the idea of consent in marriage and the concept of woman-as-human-not-property is something that is demonstrably and objectively better in the human rights area, thanks."

And if you cared to read my whole comment you'd see that we agree on this (since you use almost exactly the examples I use). I was just pointing out that whoever calls someone in the 8th century a pedophile or a racist is ignoring almost all knowledge we have about that period and that societies. Applying modern concepts to actions of people living centuries before you is so problematic because you ignore just about anything that person had the possibility to know and propose he/she had somehow an obligation to grasp later historical and social developments.
posted by nkyad at 10:49 AM on February 5, 2006

"and I'm not at all surprised to be seeing this kind of protest over those awful cartoons."

well, then you validate so many tenets contained within this thread (which you are arguing with). The reprisals are symptomatic of the problems within the Muslim community are they not? This broad and violent reaction to a CARTOON suggests that the community of Muslims better get their shit together and start an aggressive campaign to improve their image and 'out' these "few hundred zealots" TMB speaks about. You say this stuff as though God/Muhammed/Allah would be ok with it.
posted by j.p. Hung at 10:53 AM on February 5, 2006

Wash Jones: Way to view it from only the Western perspective!
posted by onegreeneye at 10:59 AM on February 5, 2006

Germany and Austria have these laws as a result of the atrocities those nations committed. Austria, in particular, has never properly acknowledged its major role in the Holocaust, and there are a lot of real Nazis still around.
posted by spira at 8:11 AM PST on February 5 [!]

The fundamental flaw here and in all attempts to stifle expression, is the belief that by stifling one's expression, you somehow eradicate the belief behind it. Banning someone from expressing convictions that offend you does nothing to change those convictions (or the hatred, fear, whatever fueling them). Only open dialogue, with it's accompanying freedom of expression, can do that. Gagging a Nazi in Austria doesn't make him any less a Nazi.
posted by onegreeneye at 11:05 AM on February 5, 2006

onegreeneye: Wash Jones: Way to view it from only the Western perspective!

Being that's where I'm from, it's the only perspective I can legitimately argue from. Care to make a principled, non-dogmatic response from another one?
posted by Wash Jones at 11:05 AM on February 5, 2006

j.p., sometimes, comments are directed at the FPP, not entirely at the comments that follow it. Did you forget that all this started from the links?

You say this stuff as though God/Muhammed/Allah would be ok with it.

As Canadian raised in an atheist family, I don't really care about these sorts of issues. I'm not interested in condemning anyone through the eyes of their own deity. Good luck with that, though. I'm sure it's a great way to end violence and injustice in the world.
posted by Hildegarde at 11:07 AM on February 5, 2006

If you take away the actual burning of the embassies, what's the difference between the cartoons and the demonstrations and flag-burnings. Calling for another's death in the context of a demonstration (where no real threat is posed) is free speech too, no? Isn't that what's meant by "the only antidote to speech you dislike is more speech?"

The double standards in here are amazing. If you support the right of the Danish newspaper to publish inflammatory comics - as I do - then surely you must support the right of Muslims around the world to demonstrate?

It's certainly unfortunate that the embassies burned down, which to me is clearly a lack of local security. But the demonstrations that led up to it? Absolutely protected speech.

onegreeneye - trouble is that your assumption about the belief behind anti-hate-speech laws is false.
posted by mikel at 11:21 AM on February 5, 2006

If you support the right of the Danish newspaper to publish inflammatory comics - as I do - then surely you must support the right of Muslims around the world to demonstrate?

Demonstrate, yes. Boycott, yes. Speak out, yes. Deface, vandalize, kill, burn, maim, destroy?
posted by Gator at 11:24 AM on February 5, 2006

j.p. Hung, just to follow up on your complaint that Musilms are not doing enough here is a report from a Swedish journalist in Beirut.

Långt ifrån alla muslimer stöder de våldsamma protesterna i Libanon. Imamer har försökt stoppa våldet. Det berättar Leyla Tengroth, som tillfälligt bor alldeles intill den danska ambassaden i stadsdelen Acharafiyeh, för DN.se.

Journalisten och filmaren Leyla Tengroth kommer ursprungligen från Libanon, men är just nu bara där tillfälligt. Under dagen har hon kunnat följa de våldsamma oroligheterna på gatan nedanför sitt fönster bara 100 meter från det danska konsulatet.

Leyla Tengroth berättar att flera muslimska imamer gått ner och ställt sig mellan demonstranterna och de byggnader och kyrkor som de gett sig på, för att förhindra skadegörelsen.

Translation,

Far from all Muslims support the violent protests in Lebanon. Imams have tried to stop the violence. This according to Leyla Tengroth who lives next to the Danish embassy in the Acharafiyeh area of Beirut.

Journalist and camerawoman Leyla Tengroth comes originally from Lebanon, but is just now there temporarily. During the day she has been able to follow the violent protests on the street outside her window just 100 meters from the Danish embassy.

Leyla Tengroth says that several Muslim Imams went and placed themselves between the demonstrators and the buildings in order to prevent the damage.

You can put your broad brushes away.
posted by three blind mice at 11:25 AM on February 5, 2006

In the US, we allowed a Ku Klux Klan member to run for Congress. Can you really argue that that didn't help to culturally legitimize the historical actions of the Klan, for those who might otherwise have been more ambivalent?

i can argue that if a person wants to believe something badly enough, then he will ... i can also argue that the person didn't get elected

If you believe that advertising works -- and Google's stock price is the index of that belief -- then you believe that what some people say can affect what other people believe and do.

only with their permission ... what i get from your argument is that some people aren't responsible enough to make up their minds properly on certain things that are said to them and therefore the government should make sure that those things aren't said to them

the germans and austrian opponents of nazis have a clear cut argument against those who would run for office on a nazi platform ... "look what happened the last time we let people like you run the country" ... i think that most people would believe this argument without any question ... and if they aren't capable of that, then we're no longer just arguing whether certain things should be said ... but whether people are intelligent enough to be self-governing

But you can't deny that those forms of speech don't have serious consequences

and you can't deny that banning those forms of speech is an action that brings into question whether people are intelligent and discerning enough to govern themselves ... and whether an elite group of people who "know best" should set the limits of what can be debated in public for the public good

there are consequences to that, also ... it makes political prisoners and martyrs out of people who in most cases, should just be ignored ... it enables those who hold such views to make the argument that they are being silenced because the government doesn't have an answer for them ... it gives other people, such as muslims who are angry over cartoons, the opportunity to argue that other forms of speech should be banned also ... and worst of all, it gives a nation a false sense of security ... that now that they've prohibited nazi-ism and holocaust denial that the nation is immune from distortion and rabble rousing, that other forms of fascism can never happen

freedom is dangerous ... and banning certain forms of speech only gives the impression that what isn't banned couldn't be dangerous
posted by pyramid termite at 11:36 AM on February 5, 2006

Speaking of the Holocaust, offended Muslims are finaly getting on board with free speech.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:41 AM on February 5, 2006

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only countries where holocaust denial can be a criminal offense are Germany and Austria, right?

Also, I think the line of reasoning is not that it is criminal to deny the obvious, undeniable truth, but rather that holocaust denial is inciting race hatred and may, somehow, lead to a repetition of history (i.e. another holocaust). But I believe that this is just the official line and the *real* reason is that it's just the Germans' and Austrians' way to show that they are really really sorry about what happened. I.e. after all that was done to the victims, they just don't want holocaust deniers running around and mocking the victims.

So, as everything, you have to see the whole thing in context. Personally, I'd like freedom of speech to be an absolute standard, and I think that it should be allowed to by "Mine Kampf" in Germany, but I also understand these countries' special history and their desire to do the "right thing."
posted by sour cream at 12:15 PM on February 5, 2006

kaemaril: how about the Western world promises to prosecute everyone drawing offensive cartoons if the Middle East promises to prosecutes everyone offensively burning flags (or embassies) and screaming "Death to {America | Britain | Country Of Choice}!" etc?

I realize you are being sarcastic, but anyway:

Painting a caricature featuring God/the prophet (pbuh): OK
Screaming "Death to America": OK
Burning the Danish flag: OK (well, if it's your own and not the embassy's)
Burning down the Danish embassy: not OK
Taking hostages in retaliation for stupid cartoons: not OK
Threatening cartoonists with death: not OK

I hope we are on the same page with this...
posted by sour cream at 12:21 PM on February 5, 2006

After Muhammad's first wife Khadijah (who was 15 years older than him) died, he had only one child. One child. Seeing as there wasn't a lot of working birth control floating around the Arabian peninsula back then, one can really only assume that he wasn't having a lot of sex. Most sources say that Khadijah was the love of Muhammad's life.
posted by maxreax at 12:32 PM on February 5, 2006

maxreax, are you implying that the prophet (pbuh) was ... inadequate?
Careful what you say here, or we'll stage a good ol' fashioned embassy torching in no time.
posted by sour cream at 12:34 PM on February 5, 2006

I wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only countries where holocaust denial can be a criminal offense are Germany and Austria, right?

Umh, guess I should have read the fpp more carefully -- France, Belgium, Israel... not sure if Holocaust denial legislation makes much sense there, except to keep people from being offended.
posted by sour cream at 12:47 PM on February 5, 2006

I agree with this guy
posted by A189Nut at 1:11 PM on February 5, 2006

The fundamental flaw here and in all attempts to stifle expression, is the belief that by stifling one's expression, you somehow eradicate the belief behind it. Banning someone from expressing convictions that offend you does nothing to change those convictions (or the hatred, fear, whatever fueling them). Only open dialogue, with it's accompanying freedom of expression, can do that. Gagging a Nazi in Austria doesn't make him any less a Nazi.

I'm not going to go into whether laws against hate-speech are good or not - most has been said already.

But as a German, I'd like to add one important point that usually doesn't come up, and is missed again in this thread:

It's not the belief that you could change convictions by gagging them. A large part of the intention of these laws was simply a practical attempt at minimizing embarrassment and damage to the economic and cultural re-integration into the civilized world.

Those laws were not created two years ago, but directly after the war, when Germany and Austria were eager to get back into the international community - a process that many see was only concluded with the fall of the iron curtain, if at all.

Take for example when Germany's unemployment hit a new low last year, parts of the international press was seriously discussing if this situation was similar to the time at Hitler's power grab. This was the international reaction a year ago. If you now imagine some Nazis spewing their bullshit in the 50's or 60's, you can see why there is a very practical intention in these laws that was not connected to the actual convictions behind the speech.

Germany and Austria were interested in a way to save face, that's one of the reasons for these laws.

Whether this was the right way, or much less if this is still a good idea today, is a wholly different matter. But it's definitely not the case that we simply think you can suppress convictions away.
posted by uncle harold at 1:23 PM on February 5, 2006

The fundamental flaw here and in all attempts to stifle expression, is the belief that by stifling one's expression, you somehow eradicate the belief behind it. Banning someone from expressing convictions that offend you does nothing to change those convictions (or the hatred, fear, whatever fueling them). Only open dialogue, with it's accompanying freedom of expression, can do that.


And you can prove that this is always true how? I actually believe that it's usually true, but anybody who decides that this is always true is awfully naive. History is full of occassions when beliefs have been destroyed by preventing the airing of them publically.

Germany and Austria have these laws because politicians want to get re-elected and such inane pandering will garnish a few swing votes while not changing the 'hard liners' voting position

Nonsense. These laws were hardly popular when they were put into effect, especially in Austria. The Austrian populace was not pushing for a law against denying the horrors of the Third Reich (which is what the Austrian law says; it is not was not designed as a Holocaust denial law, since the Holocaust had yet to be recognized by the world in the late 1940s).

It is downright amazing how many people here seem unable to look at things without connecting them to the United States and 2006 Context is all important. And that isn't cultural relativism, it's just plain common sense - know all the facts before you jump to a conclusion.

It may very well be true that Holocaust denial laws are a bad idea. But declarations of political philosophy and charges of pandering are hardly convincing evidence
posted by spira at 1:35 PM on February 5, 2006

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only countries where holocaust denial can be a criminal offense are Germany and Austria, right?

I'm not sure if Holocaust Denial in particular has any official status as a criminal act in Australia, but I do know that it would be covered by Australian anti-vilification laws, which do carry criminal charges.

In point of fact, David Irving - a prominent Holocaust Denier and alleged historian - was refused an entry visa to Australia several years ago on the basis of his outspoken beliefs on the Holocaust.
posted by planetthoughtful at 1:38 PM on February 5, 2006

Low IQ Westerner : I am a peaceful, rational person and war sucks.
Low IQ Muslim : I am also a peaceful, rational person and I agree war sucks.
LIW : I believe X is moral and Y is immoral. I have a very deep conviction in my soul about this. The truth is self-evident and is reinforced by everything I have ever known.
LIM : I believe Y is moral and X is immoral. I have a very deep conviction in my soul about this. The truth is self-evident and is reinforced by everything I have ever known.
LIW : Yes well that is because you are an unprincipled, uncivilized savage.
LIM : Yes well that is because you are a morally corrupt, self-destructive infidel.
LIW : I will not stand by and let the innocent victims of Y be harmed like that.
LIM : I will not stand by and let the innocent victims of X be harmed like that.
==> War

Where can I find a forum where intelligence is a prerequisite for posting rights?
posted by DirtyCreature at 1:50 PM on February 5, 2006

I find the parallel by three blind mice to be horribly inaccurate, but also missing some vital facts. First, understand that freedom of speech is not considered absolute in many countries, and many ban "hate speech" when they can. In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence uwith a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years, and so on.

As scholar after scholar has pointed out, the ONLY reason for Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism -- only that can justify working back from a lie ("the Holocaust never happened"), since it certainly isn't scholarship. If you believe that hate speech should be banned, then Holocaust denial is a clear case of it, and a particularly pernicious one at that. As Nizkor puts it -- " "The real purpose of 'holocaust revisionism' is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again.""

Now, the question is whether or not the cartoons should be included as hate speech, and, if so, whether they should be banned by countries that ban hate speech. That can be debated, as can the value of banning some forms of speech at all. But to draw the connection between the Holocaust and the cartoons seems over the top.
posted by blahblahblah at 1:56 PM on February 5, 2006

sour cream : I should think it self-evident.
posted by kaemaril at 2:27 PM on February 5, 2006

>>Related discussion here.

Related? You're making a FPP that's a comment to that thread. And a bad one at that. Cartooning vs how Holocaust deniers are treated in countries where the Holocaust happened. Its like you've automatically Godwined yourself by purposely cherry-picking one of the worst acts in human history. Non-sequitur I'm afraid. Behold the difference:

Judiasm is a false religion and its prophets are delusional fools.

Islam is a false religion and its prophets are delusional fools.

Which one of these statements would lead to mass protests and the burning down of large things?

Westerners limit speech? You don't say! I better remove "How to take down the US government" and "Classified secrets revealed" books from my cafepress store. I should probably take down my "Libelous Claims About People" books too.
posted by skallas at 2:27 PM on February 5, 2006

Hildegard, what exactly did you find so offensive about the cartoons? I saw them, and none seemed particularly bad to me.
posted by delmoi at 2:38 PM on February 5, 2006

This seems relevant (I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies in advance if it's a double)
posted by strawberryviagra at 4:30 PM on February 5, 2006

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome: You don't exist!
posted by semmi at 5:16 PM on February 5, 2006

The portrayal of Islam as inherently evil is not satire. It is an attempt to demonize Islam in the same way Nazi propaganda demonized the Jews during the 30's. That is why free speech has to have checks and balances, in order to prevent future holocausts from occurring. The inferred cultural and moral superiority of the democratic system, with its free speech can be undermined if bigotry and prejudice become accepted as legitimate discourse. The descent into persecution or war is always rapid when this happens and makes good people do bad things.

Muslims are rightly feeling persecuted and this should have been considered by the cartoons publishers, maybe it was. The Middle East is largely occupied or under the political influence of the West, our weapons having killed thousands in a what is ultimately a resource grab. We in the west, the defenders of individual rights and all that is good, are hardly saints in this debate.
posted by piscatorius at 5:36 PM on February 5, 2006

One humble cartoonist gets to the moral core of the issue.
posted by boaz at 5:50 PM on February 5, 2006

There are a billion Muslims j.p. hung. I don't have any idea what is being preached by every Imam and I suspect neither do you. Both of us, however, see a great deal of the few hundred zealots.

Will someone *please* do some polling, then, so I can see what proportion of the Muslim community deserves my derision / ire for supporting violence in reaction to the cartoons (the three worst of which were not even published)?? I think it makes a difference if 0.0001% support the violence or if 94% support the violence, or something in between. I am genuinely interested and concerned as to how widespread is the belief that violence is the answer to perceived slights against Islam.

And if such polls have been done already, would someone be so kind as to link to the results please? Thanks in advance.

I realize polls are not perfect, of course, but I think having some reasonable data is better than vastly different opinions as to whether or not support of the violence is widespread or not.
posted by beth at 6:01 PM on February 5, 2006

Without having read this whole thread...in general, I think Holocaust denial should be legal, as should any form of disagreement about history, or any topic. Free speech should have few limits. But I don't think that you can judge these laws absent any context. I think that Austria and Germany have a much stronger case to make that these laws are necessary than do other countries, and I wouldn't be as quick to condemn a law against Holocaust denial there. I think this is also the case because you can't separate Holocaust denial, in practice, from anti-Semitism. In most contexts, I wouldn't think that that connection would be enough to warrant banning speech (also, we don't want to prevent any debate about the nature or scope of the Holocaust, some of which may be legitimate, though denial certainly isn't). But in the context of Germany or Austria, preventing a recurrence of anti-Semitic incitement is arguably more important that elsewhere.

Also, I think that attempts to imprison people like Ernst Zundel for Holocaust denial have the unfortunate effect of making monsters look like martyrs, and of giving them publicity.
posted by Dasein at 6:04 PM on February 5, 2006

The portrayal of Islam as inherently evil is not satire. It is an attempt to demonize Islam in the same way Nazi propaganda demonized the Jews during the 30's. That is why free speech has to have checks and balances, in order to prevent future holocausts from occurring.

This is a stupid statement. The ones in power and thus the ones who can put the 'necessary checks' on free speech would be the ones perpetrating any future holocaust, and silencing their critics' free speech.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:30 PM on February 5, 2006

Will someone *please* do some polling, then, so I can see what proportion of the Muslim community deserves my derision / ire for supporting violence in reaction to the cartoons (the three worst of which were not even published)?? I think it makes a difference if 0.0001% support the violence or if 94% support the violence, or something in between. I am genuinely interested and concerned as to how widespread is the belief that violence is the answer to perceived slights against Islam.

Do you think this is a higher or lower number than the percentage of Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq when it was first happening?
posted by Space Coyote at 7:35 PM on February 5, 2006

Do you think this is a higher or lower number than the percentage of Americans who supported the invasion of Iraq when it was first happening?

I don't know, and I don't care to guess. Are you trying to draw some sort of equivalence between believing government officials that insist a country has dangerous WMD in contravention of international law and supporting invasion based on that pretext and supporting violence and the burning of embassies because of cartoons?

I hope not because I think it's pretty obvious that those two things are not very similar to each other.
posted by beth at 7:51 PM on February 5, 2006

Will someone *please* do some polling, then, so I can see what proportion of the Muslim community deserves my derision / ire for supporting violence in reaction to the cartoons (the three worst of which were not even published)?

Have you seen any riots in the largest Islamic countries (Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey)? I doubt it. That should be a start.
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:59 PM on February 5, 2006

Have you seen any riots in the largest Islamic countries (Indonesia...)? I doubt it.

Up to 300 militant Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage in the lobby of a building housing the Danish embassy in Jakarta.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:09 PM on February 5, 2006

I hope not because I think it's pretty obvious that those two things are not very similar to each other.

Yeah, one's a whole lot worse than the other.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:16 PM on February 5, 2006

Yeah because cartoons kill more people than nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons combined.
posted by beth at 8:46 PM on February 5, 2006

Up to 300 militant Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage in the lobby of a building housing the Danish embassy in Jakarta.

I missed that story. Mea Culpa.
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:47 PM on February 5, 2006

Yeah because cartoons kill more people than nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons combined.

they'll get my no 2 pencil when they pry it from my cold dead hands ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:06 PM on February 5, 2006

Up to 300 militant Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage in the lobby of a building housing the Danish embassy in Jakarta.
I misread that as 300 million there, for a moment :)
posted by kaemaril at 9:24 PM on February 5, 2006

Space coyote. I don't think you understand. Extreme right parties like the BNP are empowered when racism becomes an acceptable form of expression. In a democracy they are allowed to replace a centrist government.
posted by piscatorius at 10:49 PM on February 5, 2006

And you certainly know for a fact that Mohammed had sex with the child in question immediately after their marriage, right?

Do I know it for a fact? Without being there, no I don't. However, I can read and links to the discussions of the historical evidence on this issue have been posted at least twice in this thread. Here's yet another discussion of it, if you can be bothered to read it.

And the fact that in many of those marriages the husband waited until the girl in question menstruated can be safely ignored for the sake of the argument too, right?


If you'd bothered to read any of the previous links, you'd know that Aisha was promised to Mohammed at the age of six, but wasn't delivered up to him until she'd menstruated.

The problem for western Muslims is that this actually happened at the age of nine.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:37 PM on February 5, 2006

Most people seem to be missing my poing above, and that is that Americans who approved of the invasion of an unarmed nation have more blood on their hands than muslims who've so far caused a lot of property damage.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:24 AM on February 6, 2006

Space Coyote, according to recent scientific studies, it is technically possible to denounce more than one thing at a time, without implying they're equivalent, you know?

When, say, a bunch of football (soccer) hooligans in Italy caused riots and violence and destruction of property and maybe even a few deaths, no one went and pointed out that hey, fascism caused more damage and killed more people.

These excessive and violent reactions to the cartoons are a problem regardless of the US bombings in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the tortures in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, etc. Unless you think everything in the Arab or Muslim world needs to be filtered through what the US does. As if those countries' governments, political systems, culture, religious fundamentalism, etc., all the factors that played into this, don't matter at all. It's always about the US. YAWN. And I'm saying that as a bonafide antiamerican. (Politically speaking only. I don't want to burn anyone's flag or embassy.)

The whole thing could and should have stopped at legitimate means of protest by those offended. Others may disagree with the demand that the press give in to religious pressures. But the had every right to complain anyway. Through the Danish system, even taking the thing to court as the Danish PM suggested (didn't he say Denmark also has laws against blasphemy? they could have exploited that, much as laws against blasphemy are ridiculously outdated, but you know, as long as they're in place, that's a legitimate route you can take), and yes, boycotts included, even if when it gets to hundreds and maybe thousands of people being laid off, which means punishing people that had nothing to do with the whole thing (but nobody gives a shit for workers anymore right?), but it's still legal and legitimate.

The shift to: Arab governments exploiting this for their own populist reason, making themselves representative for all Muslims in Denmark and ignoring that unlike in Arab countries the Danish government doesn't control the press, recalling ambassadors, demanding UN resolutions, allowing embassies to be torched, violence, destruction, calls for more terrorism, death threats -- al that is all totally unacceptable and illegal regardless of how unacceptable and illegal the war in Iraq is. Also, obviously, regardless of how insensitive and provocatory those cartoons may have been in the first place. Violence is clearly not a proportionate response.

And yes the ones perpetrating the violence are a minority. And there's many Muslims who have denounced these things, and many more who won't speak up because they don't have the freedom to, as those two Jordanian editors who lost their job demonstrate.

A minority can still intimidate, cause enormous damage, and create political crises. That's a serious problem both in the Arab world and in many Muslim communities in Europe: a radical minority making things difficult for everybody else. And if there has to be a comparison with the US, all due and big differences aside, well I'm sure everyone here can appreciate that fact when it comes to the creationists. They don't need to be a majority. But somehow some of the same people who acknowledge that problem in that context don't seem to be acknowledging it in this context. I wonder why.
posted by funambulist at 1:07 AM on February 6, 2006

No time to read the whole thread. Denial of holocaust amounts to hate speech. I have no problem with bans on hate speech. As an American, I know this freaks some of my compatriots out.

Frankly, America is full of shit when it comes to "free speech". It is an illusion Americans generally agree about. But it is an illusion. If speech was free, it would matter one damn bit what words some radio host would choose to use. No, instead, we have these words (words!) so terrible, they punish the station as well as the speaker.

Many of us saw the video of that guy being shot by a cop the other day. They showed the shooting, but had to bleep-out the expletives. What kind of shit is that?

I would rather a world in which there was no reason to ban any sort of speech. But that's not this world. But I won't entertain a bunch of American freer-than-thou bullshit to cloud my judgement in such matters.

"You better watch what you say"
(Ari Fleischer, Whitehouse press secretary)
posted by Goofyy at 4:27 AM on February 6, 2006

funambulist nails it for me. I would also say that all of the Muslims I have talked living in the UK have condemned the actions of the mobs involved in these violent acts. The shame of it is that they do not possess a voice that is heard in the media, much like normal everyday non-YE Creationist Christians are not often heard when their more vocal and idiotic brethren mouth off.

It seems to me that the most common feeling in both religions would be one of moderation; but that moderation doesn't sell advertising space or make headlines. Which is going to sell more papers -
"Extremists who 'threaten us all'!" or
"Small minority very angry and violent, vast majority unperturbed and calm!"?
posted by longbaugh at 7:49 AM on February 6, 2006

I don’t think there should be any limits on free speech (excepting those “fire” in the proverbial crowded theater cases).
I have serious problems with bans on “hate speech.”
The only solution to free speech you don’t like is more free speech.

The truth always (ultimately) wins. Sucks if it’s not in your lifetime tho’.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:19 AM on February 6, 2006