Brooklyn

It’s good when I can use a photograph to talk about a larger issue, something I hope to do more of with this blog and the future website. There was an interesting article in the International Herald Tribune about free speech vs. hate speech and the different approaches that America and most of the rest of the developed world has.

“Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

Last week, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined €15,000, or $23,000, in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.”

By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there,” Adam Liptak writes.


The Wall. Vienna, Austria 2008 © Damaso Reyes

This is an issue I thought a lot about when I lived in Germany last year. I have to say that I am much more in favor of the American point of view here. Of course I don’t think that we should promote or endorse hate speech. I believe that once we begin to outlaw speech then the slope becomes very slippery very quickly. It’s an old argument but once you ban some speech that is very hateful what is to stop you from banning other speech which is somewhat offensive? More importantly who gets to decide?

In Germany the way they often deal with parties and groups that are offensive is to ban them. Of course this does not mean that these ideas go away as we have seen in the racist and anti-immigrant violence that still happens there, especially in the east. These ideas and their supporters are pushed underground rather than debated and refuted in the light of day. That is what by and large happens here in America. There are people who espouse neo-Nazi points of view but whenever they plan and march usually ten times as many people turn out to oppose them. They are shown as the racist and marginal figures that they are and society is strengthened without ever having to ban a book or idea.

To me this is a much more healthy and modern way of dealing with this issue. If we believe in the “marketplace of ideas” then we have to accept that there are some bad ideas out there and as progressive people we have to work as hard as we can to oppose them. But as we have seen simply outlawing an idea doesn’t make it go away.

What do you think?

I agree completely. Ideas should be debated, not criminalized. For example, many American scholars of Ottoman history do not belive that the massacres and ethnic cleansing carried out against Anatolia's Armenians constitutes genocide. In France, these historians could be prosecuted.

It is not for governments to decide what is true and what is not.

Unfortunately banning groups just makes them go 'underground'. Racism, in fact any 'ism' should be publicised and exposed as often as it occurs. Here in the UK, there are Security guards and Police Support staff trying to ban photography in public under the guise of anti terrot legislation. It's been said that we are photographed on CCTV in major towns some 300 times a day and yet they are trying to stop us making images...it may not be 'for governments to decide what is true and what is not' That is what they do though...

We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 7 days.