NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to say this is surprising, but unfortunately, I can't. I would say this is a good example of the police abusing their powers. It's not just a problem in the U.S after all eh?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/

I would like to say this is surprising, but unfortunately, I can't. I would say this is a good example of the police abusing their powers. It's not just a problem in the U.S after all eh?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/

Jesus. That's ridiculous. Even in the U.S. you can't send a person to prison for hurting someone's feelings. The only thing I can think of recently that's even a little similar was when the KKK was prevented from holding a meeting at the time and place of a Civil Rights celebration march, because it was extremely likely that a riot and violence would ensue. They were allowed to hold it somewhere else, though, or in that place on another day, they just didn't want to, because... you know, not as many people would get to see their flossy new sheets.

Is it surprising that in a country with hate speech laws someone would be arrested for hate speech?

Well Netherlands are constantly clamping down on people using free speech for freedom of expression.
I remember when they arrested and raided houses of people using free speech to say something they didn't like.

Well Netherlands are constantly clamping down on people using free speech for freedom of expression.
I remember when they arrested and raided houses of people using free speech to say something they didn't like.Prove that unfounded statement.

People don't have a right not to be offended or mocked.

Prove that unfounded statement.

I will soon, when i can be bothered to find the articles .

Links,

http://www.meldpunt.nl/index.php?link=pers#Politie%20pakt%20Stormfront%20aan
Dutch police raid houses and arrest people for using there freedom of speech.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20738763-1702,00.html
Dutch enforce laws against what people can and can't wear.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=24801&name=Netherlands+to+extradite+Holocaust+denier
Dutch extradite person for denying the holocaust and expressing his belief that it did not happen to the extent people claim.

http://www.sgp.nl/Page/sp3/ml1/from_sp_id=11/nctrue/system_id=1034/so_id=13/Index.html
Dutch call for censorship of Internet due to freedom of speech.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/06/crime.toes.reut/index.html
Dutch plan on outlawing on outlawing the unsolicited licking of toes. (not quiet any thing bad but..)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/neth-a12.shtml
Racist witch hunt by Dutch.

Explain this one to me. I can understand how hate speech laws prohibit denigrating people for things over which they have no control, like ethnicity or national origin (I disagree with them, but I understand what they're trying to do). But here this cartoonist is accusing of insulting people for their beliefs.

That's entirely different. Your beliefs aren't immutable.

I absolutely need to be allowed to make fun of people I think have drawn bad conclusions.

People don't have a right not to be offended or mocked.

They do, in the Netherlands.

Links,

http://www.meldpunt.nl/index.php?link=pers#Politie%20pakt%20Stormfront%20aan
Dutch police raid houses and arrest people for using there freedom of speech.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20738763-1702,00.html
Dutch enforce laws against what people can and can't wear.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=24801&name=Netherlands+to+extradite+Holocaust+denier
Dutch extradite person for denying the holocaust and expressing his belief that it did not happen to the extent people claim.

http://www.sgp.nl/Page/sp3/ml1/from_sp_id=11/nctrue/system_id=1034/so_id=13/Index.html
Dutch call for censorship of Internet due to freedom of speech.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/06/crime.toes.reut/index.html
Dutch plan on outlawing on outlawing the unsolicited licking of toes. (not quiet any thing bad but..)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/neth-a12.shtml
Racist witch hunt by Dutch.


1 of those doesn't work and 2 aren't in english. You should pick a language everybody on this boars speaks.

Explain this one to me. I can understand how hate speech laws prohibit denigrating people for things over which they have no control, like ethnicity or national origin (I disagree with them, but I understand what they're trying to do). But here this cartoonist is accusing of insulting people for their beliefs.

That's entirely different. Your beliefs aren't immutable.

I absolutely need to be allowed to make fun of people I think have drawn bad conclusions.

In fairness, I can understand legislation when it comes to racial insults, although I don't condone it.
But I would agree when it comes to religion. It's a choice, same as political believes, and it needs to be ridiculed in the same way.

Prove that unfounded statement.

pfft, come on. We all know what the DUTCH are like. There are two kinds of people I can't stand. Those who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch.



:D

He could just come to the US...we've certainly got more freedom of speech and expression.

Typical. I'm surprised there weren't riots.

What sticks out to me is that they needed ten policeman to arrest one cartoonist. God forbid they ever run across an actual criminal.

we've certainly got more freedom of speech and expression.

Only if it conforms.

Only if it conforms.

You keep thinking that ...

Only if it conforms.

Unless all those antiwar protestors and KKK members represent the positions of the American government, I'd have to doubt it. The United States is very, very free when it comes to what forms of speech and expression are permitted.

Agreed. The United States has some of the toughest protections of freedom of expression.

This is unacceptable (arresting the cartoonist). Just because people are offended doesn't mean he should be fined.

Hell, I am deeply offended by this arrest. Arrest the cops!

People don't have a right not to be offended or mocked.

Why not?

What's the point of being a political cartoonist if you're not allowed to insult ideas?

I've never heard of the guy before so I've no idea what his politics are, but that's irrelevant: this is an unjustified infringement of free speech (unless he was inciting violence or commiting libel obviously).

Why not?

Because everything will offend someone: there are plenty of people who are offended by people being openly homosexual for example, but their reaction doesn't translate into a right to infringe the rights of others.

What's the point of being a political cartoonist if you're not allowed to insult ideas?

I've never heard of the guy before so I've no idea what his politics are, but that's irrelevant: this is an unjustified infringement of free speech (unless he was inciting violence or commiting libel obviously).

Well, with what I read so far about him, that might actually have been the case...

Well laws like this are similar in Germany

Well, with what I read so far about him, that might actually have been the case...

If that's the case then he should be prosecuted for those crimes. Free speech is not a defense against libel or incitement to violence. That said, I haven't been able to see any of his cartoons as his webpage seems to be down (and the google cache is coming up blank too).

EDIT: The cartoons can still be seen on Google Images, although they don't make much sense to me as I don't speak Dutch...

They're certainly unpleasant, but not obviously criminal.

Because everything will offend someone: there are plenty of people who are offended by people being openly homosexual for example, but their reaction doesn't translate into a right to infringe the rights of others.

So what about the right not to feel threatened? Walking down the street and being black can be enough for some people to feel threatened. Does that mean that we should allow a group of men to stand outside your front door, with meanicing stares and baseball bats?

So what about the right not to feel threatened? Walking down the street and being black can be enough for some people to feel threatened. Does that mean that we should allow a group of men to stand outside your front door, with meanicing stares and baseball bats?

There is no right 'not to feel threatened': this would clearly be nonsensical. Instead, it's against the law to threaten people for the same reason it's against the law to incite violence.

EDIT: Incidentally I find your argument offensive. Kindly stop now or I'll be forced to call the police.

There is no right 'not to feel threatened': this would clearly be nonsensical.

Precisely, but whilst I've often heard "there's no right to not feel offended" in response to the offended, I've never heard anyone use the phrase "there's no right to not feel threatened" in response to the threatened.

http://www.meldpunt.nl/index.php?link=pers#Politie%20pakt%20Stormfront%20aan
Dutch police raid houses and arrest people for using there freedom of speech.That group is on the level of the Ku Klux Klan; if they want to spread their hate, they are obliged to do so within the limits of the law, just like anyone else.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20738763-1702,00.html
Dutch enforce laws against what people can and can't wear.No such law was passed, because it was found unconstitutional.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=24801&name=Netherlands+to+extradite+Holocaust+denier
Dutch extradite person for denying the holocaust and expressing his belief that it did not happen to the extent people claim.Link doesn't work.

http://www.sgp.nl/Page/sp3/ml1/from_sp_id=11/nctrue/system_id=1034/so_id=13/Index.html
Dutch call for censorship of Internet due to freedom of speech.Some dutch, in this case very conservatist christian political groups. They, however, don't represent most Dutch.
You have the same kind of groups in every country.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/06/crime.toes.reut/index.html
Dutch plan on outlawing on outlawing the unsolicited licking of toes. (not quiet any thing bad but..)Page does not exist.
And should unsolicited toelicking be allowed as freedom of expression or whatnot? Seems like sexual harassment to me; but maybe that's just freedom of expression as well.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/neth-a12.shtml
Racist witch hunt by Dutch.By some corproate CEOs, again, you find them in every country. Not particularly representative of the Dutch community.



Personally, I'd like to see what those supposed hateful cartoons were before I pass any judgment. But don't let facts get in your way on my account.

Precisely, but whilst I've often heard "there's no right to not feel offended" in response to the offended, I've never heard anyone use the phrase "there's no right to not feel threatened" in response to the threatened.

Possibly because the whole point of threatening someone is imply the possiblity of violence against them? Violence is illegal you see. Offending or insulting someone doesn't imply violence, so the comparison is pretty pointless.

Incidentally, if someone suggested that black people should all be locked up because they personally felt threatened whenever they saw a black person walking down the street, then I would tell them:

1. That they're an idiot.
2. That they don't have a right not to feel threatened.

I would like to say this is surprising, but unfortunately, I can't. I would say this is a good example of the police abusing their powers. It's not just a problem in the U.S after all eh?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/

It's the same sort of law that applies to things like denying the Holocaust (or saying Jews deserved it). You may not agree with it, but it is a law against racial hate speech, the kind of hate speech which is perhaps the most grievous (one cannot choose their "race") and certainly not something any person should condone.

Possibly because the whole point of threatening someone is imply the possiblity of violence against them? Violence is illegal you see. Offending or insulting someone doesn't imply violence, so the comparison is pretty pointless.

Incidentally, if someone suggested that black people should all be locked up because they personally felt threatened whenever they saw a black person walking down the street, then I would tell them:

1. That they're an idiot.
2. That they don't have a right not to feel threatened.

But wouldn't violent cartoons against a certain group be implying the possibility of violence to members of that group?

Only if it conforms.

Conforms to what? There is no conformity in the United States when it comes to speech. You can find people saying anything and everything.

I would like to say this is surprising, but unfortunately, I can't. I would say this is a good example of the police abusing their powers. It's not just a problem in the U.S after all eh?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/

I know nothing of the artist or his work, so I can't really say anything about the case - but how are the police abusing their powers?

It's the same sort of law that applies to things like denying the Holocaust (or saying Jews deserved it). You may not agree with it, but it is a law against racial hate speech, the kind of hate speech which is perhaps the most grievous (one cannot choose their "race") and certainly not something any person should condone.

As opposed to their gender and sexual orientation?

I have to say that laws against hate speech, and classifying crimes as hate crimes, bothers me. If something is a crime, it's a crime and there is a punishment. When you start legislating against what people think it's a slippery slope.

I know nothing of the artist or his work, so I can't really say anything about the case - but how are the police abusing their powers?

They're clearly violating the 1st Amendment.


Wait, what? What do you mean it only applies to America?

As opposed to their gender and sexual orientation?

I have to say that laws against hate speech, and classifying crimes as hate crimes, bothers me. If something is a crime, it's a crime and there is a punishment. When you start legislating against what people think it's a slippery slope.

Here's my personal view on it. Hateful speech against men/women and people of different sexual orientations is wrong. As for the "slippery slope," define what we are slipping towards, otherwise it's just an empty statement void of any meaning.

Also, I'm not necessarily supporting the Dutch law, but rather, I'm remarking that a law against hate speech exists and this cartoonist apparently violated it.

By the way, from what I gathered, the cartoonist hasn't been convicted/punished yet (unless the Netherlands has an *extremely* different justice system than the US), so we're yet to see whether there has been any "cracking down" on "free speech".

I would like to say this is surprising, but unfortunately, I can't. I would say this is a good example of the police abusing their powers. It's not just a problem in the U.S after all eh?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/


Nekschot in my opinion is very close to a hate monger. Sure, many muslims went nuts after he drew an image of the prophet muhammad, but he was proud of it all even though innocent people were killed. I see him as an instigator.

But he should not be arrested and would not have been arrested in the USA. I have no idea what you or anyone mean when they say "even in the USA' this wouldn't happen. Ofcourse it would not happen in the USA, this is easily the most welcoming environment for free speech and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool or does not live here. Bush is mocked constantly by the left and Limbaugh is running "operation chaos" to meddle with the Demcoratic primary, yet none are thrown in jail.

you're lucky to live in the U.S. if you're here and have something to say.

Here's my personal view on it. Hateful speech against men/women and people of different sexual orientations is wrong. As for the "slippery slope," define what we are slipping towards, otherwise it's just an empty statement void of any meaning.

Also, I'm not necessarily supporting the Dutch law, but rather, I'm remarking that a law against hate speech exists and this cartoonist apparently violated it.

I think it's wrong, too, but I don't think you can make it a crime just because it's shitty. The slippery slope I was referring to was not in connection to hate speech, but hate crime laws. If someone beats someone to death, they (ostensibly) go to prison. Why should their sentence be any different if they beat the person to death because he owed them money or because he was gay? You can't kill people. It's against the law. If we start prosecuting people for what they think rather than what they do, it opens the door to prosecuting people for all kinds of ideas they might have. The fact is, we prosecute actions, not ideas.

Prove that unfounded statement.

I think the original article shows it.

Free speech is critical. If you say something and then someone acts on that something, then the person who acts, not the speaker, needs to be penalised. There are exceptions to this, such as when the speaker has some kind of leverage on the actor.

But stuff like Holocaust denial being illegal, hate crime legislation, or anything like that is stupid. Censorship, is just that. Censorship. We all know the Voltaire quote. If some fool denies the holocaust, show the audience a few video clips. Locking these people away just makes them stronger. The kind of conspiracy theory nuts who believe this, love being "persecuted" by the authorities.

Don't ban it, just sensibly refute it.

I think the original article shows it.

Free speech is critical. If you say something and then someone acts on that something, then the person who acts, not the speaker, needs to be penalised. There are exceptions to this, such as when the speaker has some kind of leverage on the actor.

But stuff like Holocaust denial being illegal, hate crime legislation, or anything like that is stupid. Censorship, is just that. Censorship. We all know the Voltaire quote. If some fool denies the holocaust, show the audience a few video clips. Locking these people away just makes them stronger. The kind of conspiracy theory nuts who believe this, love being "persecuted" by the authorities.

Don't ban it, just sensibly refute it.
Or ignore it. I'm so extreme I get ignored. One of the things we've learned is that free speech is not threatening; people may get pissed off and say they are going to do crazy things, but they don't.

Perhaps we should wait to see what exactly these cartoons look like before judging? Hate crime laws are there for a reason; whether they apply here remains to be seen, yet so many people seem to be more interested in using this as an excuse to bash The Netherlands.

Links,

http://www.meldpunt.nl/index.php?link=pers#Politie%20pakt%20Stormfront%20aan
Dutch police raid houses and arrest people for using there freedom of speech.The link only links to Melpunt Discriminatie Internet's main page.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20738763-1702,00.html
Dutch enforce laws against what people can and can't wear.Where does it say they enforced non-existent laws? Please point it out to me, and if you can, with an article that's more current.
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=24801&name=Netherlands+to+extradite+Holocaust+denier
Dutch extradite person for denying the holocaust and expressing his belief that it did not happen to the extent people claim.There is no link to the story, only the main page. Aside from that, slander isn't protected speech.
http://www.sgp.nl/Page/sp3/ml1/from_sp_id=11/nctrue/system_id=1034/so_id=13/Index.html
Dutch call for censorship of Internet due to freedom of speech.Nah, they're calling for blocking Stormfront, which is understandable, since it's not exactly appropriate for people under 18 and said individuals aren't prevented from accessing it in any way.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/06/crime.toes.reut/index.html
Dutch plan on outlawing on outlawing the unsolicited licking of toes. (not quiet any thing bad but..)Link not found.

Though, quite frankly how unsolicited licking of toes is freedom of speech or in some way should trump the right of the licked not to be licked eludes me.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/neth-a12.shtml
Racist witch hunt by Dutch.While deplorable, I fail to see how this is related to freedom of speech. They're going after people for being immigrants, not because they said anything. Apart from that, I'm rather unconvinced that the World Socialist Website is a valid source.


Your evidence has been evaluated and found wanting.

1 of those doesn't work and 2 aren't in english. You should pick a language everybody on this boars speaks.I speak German, and it's close enough to get the gist of it.
pfft, come on. We all know what the DUTCH are like. There are two kinds of people I can't stand. Those who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch.
:DWait until the Euro Cup. Then they'll show their true faces, those dirty Dutch =P
Conforms to what? There is no conformity in the United States when it comes to speech. You can find people saying anything and everything.He's a fifteen or sixteen year-old Stormfront addict. Don't be surprised if his statements make no sense.
I think the original article shows it. Explain to me how it shows that the Dutch constantly clamp down on freedom of speech. "Constantly" means to me "all the time", which is not exactly provable by one example.
Don't ban it, just sensibly refute it.Doesn't work all that well. If it did, BILD wouldn't be Europe's largest newspaper.

As for the case here, as far as I can see, he's been released, and while mindnumbingly stupid, I didn't see any criminal cartoons. And the people responsible for the arrest are hardly receiving broad support from the Dutch Parliament.

People don't have a right not to be offended or mocked.
Unless they belong to a minority or are part of a religion.

edit:
With latter I'm referring to laws around the world, not general status - Though, eg. holocaust denial is a crime in many European countries.

Sadly, it can hardly be considered unexpected. Legislating thought ultimately leads to greater examples of the predatory natures of the majority upon the minority. But hey, what do you expect? Majorities have a habit of thinking in a unified manner of stupidity, and anyone not of that mode of thought will be labeled, condemned, and ridiculed. Then the irony sets in when the legislation of the stupid majority falls upon the individuals of the majority...and *gasp* they can't believe what is happening.

It's either embrace freedom of speech and thought, or take your seat on the couch and shut up...and pray your friends of the majority don't set their sites on your differences.

Legislating thought ultimately leads to greater examples of the predatory natures of the majority upon the minority.

Where is "the majority" and "the minority"? Point to them.

It's either embrace freedom of speech and thought, or take your seat on the couch and shut up...and pray your friends of the majority don't set their sites on your differences.

Or, you know, adopt a standard that neither states "Whatever the majority doesn't like can be prohibited" nor "Anyone can say whatever he or she wants."

Every country on the planet, including the United States, already restricts absolute freedom of expression. So we make decisions of this kind already.

I don't know enough about this case right now, but to me the idea of arresting someone for insulting a religious belief is essentially thought police legislation. I don't mind someone being fired for it if he is persistent and giving the publisher a very bad name, but arrested? That is insane. No belief or ideology should be immune from satire.

1 of those doesn't work and 2 aren't in english. You should pick a language everybody on this boars speaks.

first link works -- try babelfish for translation
second link works
third link works
fourthlink works -- try babelfish for translation
fifth isn't working
sixth works.

Not everyone on this forum is a native speaker of English, and surprisingly, Dutch is the native language of the Netherlands, so articles from the Netherlands about happenings in the Netherlands are rather unreasonably in that language. Rather than demand that the world cater to one's lack of initiative, it would be more expedient and better manners to use a free translation program or read the English articles without complaint.

Possibly because the whole point of threatening someone is imply the possiblity of violence against them? Violence is illegal you see. Offending or insulting someone doesn't imply violence, so the comparison is pretty pointless.

Incidentally, if someone suggested that black people should all be locked up because they personally felt threatened whenever they saw a black person walking down the street, then I would tell them:

1. That they're an idiot.
2. That they don't have a right not to feel threatened.

But surely it is your right to do what you like in your free time? What if you like the feeling of holding a baseball bat whilst looking at somebodys house?

And as for the fear of black people thing I suspect that that wouldn't be your reaction. Rather, I think you'd say that their fear of being threatened was illegitimate (whilst the fear of homeowner faced with the baseball bats was legitimate). In much the same way, whilst we shouldn't jail people who call someone "poopy head", racial hatred should be outlawed. It's something we've got to decide as a society - what speech should be allowed, and what shouldn't. We already limit some speech (the classic example being that you can't falsely yell "fire!" in a theatre and expect your right to free speech to get you out of it) because of its consequences.

People don't have a right not to be offended or mocked.

Bloody true. No government has a mandate to do this.

Explain this one to me. I can understand how hate speech laws prohibit denigrating people for things over which they have no control, like ethnicity or national origin (I disagree with them, but I understand what they're trying to do). But here this cartoonist is accusing of insulting people for their beliefs.

From the words of Amsterdam public prosecutor spokeswoman Sanne van Meteren:

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate."

Is it surprising that in a country with hate speech laws someone would be arrested for hate speech?

Golly!

Actually, what's surprised me is this thread is over 50 posts and no-one has blamed the Islamic conspiracy to Destroy Western Society, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, and True White Dutch Culture yet.

(Figured I'd pre-emptively mention those things.)

From the words of Amsterdam public prosecutor spokeswoman Sanne van Meteren:

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate."


How does that answer anything? Llewdor asked how you could be prosecuted for insulting a belief, something you have control over, unlike race. What you quoted was what he was charged with, all the prosecutor was really saying was:

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their belief", whilst superfluously adding 'race or' only because that's what the law includes, not because he actually did so. The inciting hatred bit isn't relevant, because you can still get charged for insulting a belief whether he did so or not. So basically all you're saying is: "he was charged for insulting a belief because he was charged for insulting a belief".

How does that answer anything? Llewdor asked how you could be prosecuted for insulting a belief, something you have control over, unlike race. What you quoted was what he was charged with, all the prosecutor was really saying was:

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their belief", whilst superfluously adding 'race or' only because that's what the law includes

Ah, of course. The facts that disagree with you must be "superfluous" and stuff that she actually didn't mean to say? Talk about cherry-picking.

So basically all you're saying is: "he was charged for insulting a belief because he was charged for insulting a belief".

No, that's not what I've said, basically or otherwise.

Ah, of course. The facts that disagree with you must be "superfluous" and stuff that she actually didn't mean to say? Talk about cherry-picking.


We know he wasn't being racist because his cartoons were making fun of Muslims, not Arabs. The law is that you cannot insult people based on race or belief, so if you insult a belief, you break the law that you cannot insult someone based on race or belief, thus you are charged with insulting a belief or race. It's very simple stuff.


No, that's not what I've said, basically or otherwise.

That's exactly what you said. He asked how he could be charged based on what he did, you said because he was charged based on what he did.

I think there is some neglection of the fact that this was free speech which could have went to the point of inciting violence, and we have such sort of laws in the U.S. (for example the shouting fire in a crowded theater). In addition to possibly inciting violence towards the insulted people, it could provoke violence against the writer. It even said that radicals had killed one of the writers associates (or sumtin like that).

We know he wasn't being racist

No, we don't. This is again your assumption, and it seems to be contradicted by what the prosecutor has said.

because his cartoons were making fun of Muslims, not Arabs.

And you've seen them all, have you? The cartoons.

The law is that you cannot insult people based on race or belief

You know, I'm doing some research right now, but perhaps you could point me to a link that says that's exactly what the law is.

That's exactly what you said. He asked how he could be charged based on what he did, you said because he was charged based on what he did.

I am not going to play games with you. Either learn to read or STFU and quit burning strawmen.

They're clearly violating the 1st Amendment.

Wait, what? What do you mean it only applies to America?Yeah, when are you guys going to duplicate the Bill of Rights in your own constitutions?

I think it's wrong, too, but I don't think you can make it a crime just because it's shitty. The slippery slope I was referring to was not in connection to hate speech, but hate crime laws. If someone beats someone to death, they (ostensibly) go to prison. Why should their sentence be any different if they beat the person to death because he owed them money or because he was gay? You can't kill people. It's against the law. If we start prosecuting people for what they think rather than what they do, it opens the door to prosecuting people for all kinds of ideas they might have. The fact is, we prosecute actions, not ideas.Does this mean that the action of killing two people for their money should be prosecuted the same way as the action of killing two people in an act of terrorism?

Though frankly, I don't understand why Geert Wilder isn't charged with anything. I mean, other than the fact that he's an MP.

His hair alone is criminal.

To say nothing of his Nazi-esque spew.

No, we don't. This is again your assumption, and it seems to be contradicted by what the prosecutor has said.


From the cartoons I've seen that seems to be the case. The prosecutor in no way contradicted it, he/she said "or race", not and race, so all that means is that he may or may not have insulted a race. From the cartoons I've seen they have not been racist.


And you've seen them all, have you? The cartoons.


No, but I also have no reason to assume that he has any reason to make racist cartoons, because his beef is against Islam, not against any race.


You know, I'm doing some research right now, but perhaps you could point me to a link that says that's exactly what the law is.


It's obvious that is what the law is otherwise he would not have been charged with that offence.


I am not going to play games with you. Either learn to read or STFU and quit burning strawmen.

Fine, since your reply to llewdor didn't seem to make any actual point or argument at all, I'm just going to assume i missed it, what point were you trying to get across?

Though frankly, I don't understand why Geert Wilder isn't charged with anything. I mean, other than the fact that he's an MP.


Perhaps because thought police legislation isn't such a good thing.

Though frankly, I don't understand why Geert Wilder isn't charged with anything. I mean, other than the fact that he's an MP.


Because he in essence says the exact same things important looking muslims themselves declare. He just says them in a mocking and insulting tone, instead of glorifying their ideas and thoughts.

His hair alone is criminal.
Agreed. Shave it man ! Pim zou het zo gewild hebben.

But surely it is your right to do what you like in your free time? What if you like the feeling of holding a baseball bat whilst looking at somebodys house?

I don't know where you live, but around here I can't imagine anyone being arrested solely for standing outside a house with a baseball bat. There'd probably have to be direct threats made as well.

And as for the fear of black people thing I suspect that that wouldn't be your reaction. Rather, I think you'd say that their fear of being threatened was illegitimate (whilst the fear of homeowner faced with the baseball bats was legitimate).

Did you notice that my first reaction was that their fear was idiotic? My second reaction would indeed be to tell them that if they don't have a right not to feel threatened.

Regardless, you're going off topic here.

In much the same way, whilst we shouldn't jail people who call someone "poopy head", racial hatred should be outlawed.[/QUOTE

That simply doesn't follow .

[QUOTE=Sirmomo1;13698900]It's something we've got to decide as a society - what speech should be allowed, and what shouldn't.

Yes, and the decision should be that all but the most extreme speech (incitement to violence, slander, libel, breaches of national security in wartime etc.) must be legal. The very idea of banning any speech which could be judged as offensive is absurd, as it's far too subjective a measure.

We already limit some speech (the classic example being that you can't falsely yell "fire!" in a theatre and expect your right to free speech to get you out of it) because of its consequences.

Probably the most abused example of all time. This is an example of speech being banned because it directly leads to physical harm and has no relevence to banning speech for causing offense. I might as well say "There are already examples of instances where it's acceptable to restrict speech (see theatre example), and so there's nothing wrong with banning any speech at all!"

A lot of people found The Life of Brian offensive when it came out (and some still do) but it's one of the funniest films of all time, would you want to ban that?

Though frankly, I don't understand why Geert Wilder isn't charged with anything. I mean, other than the fact that he's an MP.

His hair alone is criminal.

To say nothing of his Nazi-esque spew.

He's currently being investigated. There are a number of complaints against him filed, but he's probably just on the 'correct' side of the line.

... of course - that line changes depending on what's going on. I'm guessing that charges will be brought when it's politically and socially convenient for them to be brought.

Probably the most abused example of all time. This is an example of speech being banned because it directly leads to physical harm and has no relevence to banning speech for causing offense.

Indeed. Free speech refers to being allowed to utter opinions. "Fire !" is not really an opinion.

From the cartoons I've seen that seems to be the case.

Oh, well from the cartoons I've seen it does.

I haven't seen them all, either, so we are both right. The prosecutor is more right however.

The prosecutor in no way contradicted it, he/she said "or race", not and race, so all that means is that he may or may not have insulted a race.

I would say that's a strong possibility, wouldn't you? Unless they fail to prosecute.

No, but I also have no reason to assume that he has any reason to make racist cartoons, because his beef is against Islam, not against any race.

Yeah, yeah. Kind of like how some people might hate Judaism, and want to deport all Jews, and criminalize Jewish beliefs... but they aren't racist. In fact they have no problem with Jews. Hey they say they aren't racist, they must not be.

It's obvious that is what the law is otherwise he would not have been charged with that offence.

The prosecutor was answering a media question, not quoting from a law book.

What law was it? Where is this law? What exactly does it state? Is it really "race or belief" in the books or is that a paraphrase? Is there something lost in the translation?

These questions are good ones to ask and even better to answer, rather than just blithely assuming the answers and 'oh, it's obvious what the law is.'

There are few things less obvious than the law, particularly laws that no one has actually cite.

Fine, since your reply to llewdor didn't seem to make any actual point or argument at all, I'm just going to assume i missed it, what point were you trying to get across?

He isn't charged simply with "insulting a belief." To say so is to deliberately ignore what the article says.

Because he in essence says the exact same things important looking muslims themselves declare. He just says them in a mocking and insulting tone, instead of glorifying their ideas and thoughts.

My fat ass. He's an MP who wants to deport Muslims to "where they came from." Wilders is a fucking nazi piece of shit, as are his idiotic, blow-hard Islamophobic supporters.

But wouldn't violent cartoons against a certain group be implying the possibility of violence to members of that group?

Depends what you mean by violent cartoons. It's possible to portray violence without advocating it, but equally it's possible to incite violence through them. The former should be legal, the latter shouldn't be.

Indeed. Free speech refers to being allowed to utter opinions. "Fire !" is not really an opinion.

That's a much better way to phrase it than I managed.

My fat ass. He's an MP who wants to deport Muslims to "where they came from." Wilders is a fucking nazi piece of shit, as are his idiotic, blow-hard Islamophobic supporters.

Technically what he states is that the culture of Islam is incompatible with the non-Islamic culture of the Netherlands. He says that in a pathetic and stupid way and is unable to clearly define what exactly those cultures are - but I daresay most people would indeed be able to point out some differences and that quite a few muslims agree with that basic idea.

1 of those doesn't work and 2 aren't in english. You should pick a language everybody on this boars speaks.

I don't speak english, but I hear english thanks to the fish in my ear. :)

"Fire !" is not really an opinion.

"There is a fire in this theater!" is not an opinion? Really?

Out of curiosity, is pornography an opinion?

Oh, well from the cartoons I've seen it does.


Link?


I haven't seen them all, either, so we are both right. The prosecutor is more right however.


The prosecutor hasn't even made a definite statement yet, only that he's been charged.


I would say that's a strong possibility, wouldn't you? Unless they fail to prosecute.


No, not from the pictures I have seen, and what do you mean unless they fail to prosecute?


Yeah, yeah. Kind of like how some people might hate Judaism, and want to deport all Jews, and criminalize Jewish beliefs... but they aren't racist. In fact they have no problem with Jews. Hey they say they aren't racist, they must not be.


Hating Judaism is not racist, wanting to deport all Jews is not racist if you want to deport them based on what they believe (but the Jews have never really been persecuted simply for what they believe, which is why it's so convenient for you to constantly make this inane comparison, because you can simply say its the same with what's happening to the Muslims today). Wanting to criminalize Jewish beliefs are also not racist.


The prosecutor was answering a media question, not quoting from a law book.

What law was it? Where is this law? What exactly does it state? Is it really "race or belief" in the books or is that a paraphrase? Is there something lost in the translation?

These questions are good ones to ask and even better to answer, rather than just blithely assuming the answers and 'oh, it's obvious what the law is.'

There are few things less obvious than the law, particularly laws that no one has actually cite.


ok:

Article 137 prohibits discriminatory defamation, incitement to hatred and discrimination in official duties or the running of a business.

In accordance with Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 90quater of the Dutch Criminal Code defines discrimination as any distinction, any exclusion restriction or preference, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social cultural or any other field of public life. The Dutch Criminal Code penalises: insults expressed publicly for the purpose of discriminating on racial and other grounds (Article 137c); incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence on grounds of, inter alia, race (Article 137d); and publicising or disseminating these expressions, other than for objective publication (Article 137e). Article 137f penalises the participation in or support of activities with the purpose of discriminating on racial or other grounds.

Notice the two are tied in the same law.


He isn't charged simply with "insulting a belief." To say so is to deliberately ignore what the article says.


All evidence points that he is, there is no evidence that he has been charged with discriminating based on race. You are completely relying on the fact that the prosecutor said "or race", which doesn't mean that he did.


My fat ass. He's an MP who wants to deport Muslims to "where they came from." Wilders is a fucking nazi piece of shit, as are his idiotic, blow-hard Islamophobic supporters.

Who gives a shit if his opinions are bullshit, arresting someone because in his opinion Muslims should be deported is disgraceful and fascist.

I don't speak english, but I hear english thanks to the fish in my ear. :)

I've been wanting to get one of those fish for a while.

"There is a fire in this theater!" is not an opinion? Really?


If the person really was of the opinion that there was a fire in the theatre then I don't think he should be arrested. If he was deliberately trying to cause chaos, then that comes under disturbing the peace laws.

Although I do agree with your basic premise that no country has absolute freedom of speech, but I'm torn on the issue of whether there should or shouldn't be absolute complete freedom of opinion. I think if you criminalize things such as denying the holocaust, that just makes the situation worse, since you create almost martyrs of the dissenters (despite them not actually getting killed, but it has the same effect) and creates an aura that the government is trying to cover up a truth it doesn't want you to know etc...

"There is a fire in this theater!" is not an opinion? Really?

You can use 'opinion' to distinguish between personal theory and objective fact, and in this instance your example would be an opinion. In another context of 'opinion' you'd be right in saying that claims that the theatre is burning down would be classed as opinion, in which case the important issues are motivation and justification.

Out of curiosity, is pornography an opinion?

No. It's hard to catergorise, but I'd say pornography would probably be best classified as a sort of artistic expression.

In another context of 'opinion' you'd be right in saying that claims that the theatre is burning down would be classed as opinion, in which case the important issues are motivation and justification.

Are these just considerations for expression in general?

If I effectively argue that Holocaust deniers are motivated by bigotry and lack any substantive justification for their opinions, does that legitimize restriction of their expressed opinions?

No. It's hard to catergorise, but I'd say pornography would probably be best classified as a sort of artistic expression.

The quote in question was "Free speech refers to being allowed to utter opinions." If pornography is not an opinion, does it count? If it does, why?

Although I do agree with your basic premise that no country has absolute freedom of speech, but I'm torn on the issue of whether there should or shouldn't be absolute complete freedom of opinion. I think if you criminalize things such as denying the holocaust, that just makes the situation worse, since you create almost martyrs of the dissenters (despite them not actually getting killed, but it has the same effect) and creates an aura that the government is trying to cover up a truth it doesn't want you to know etc...I agree. I know I'm personally more likely to seek something out if the government had once banned it.

Are these just considerations for expression in general? If I effectively argue that Holocaust deniers are motivated by bigotry and lack any substantive justification for their opinions, does that legitimize restriction of their expressed opinions?

No, you still have to prove that their espousing of Holocaust Denial is directly leading to harm in the same way that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre does.

The quote in question was "Free speech refers to being allowed to utter opinions." If pornography is not an opinion, does it count? If it does, why?

No it doesn't. It should be covered by separate rights concerning artistic expression.

No, you still have to prove that their espousing of Holocaust Denial is directly leading to harm in the same way that shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre does.

What counts as "harm"?

No it doesn't. It should be covered by separate rights concerning artistic expression.

Clarify this for me, please. Free speech is clearly a massively important right, one so important that to enter the possibility of regulating it into the realm of policymaking is dangerous. We can come up for reasons for elevating it to such a level of importance--most compellingly, I think, because it allows an atmosphere of free public discussion that's crucial for our capacity to make the right policies in the first place.

Is free artistic expression, defined so as to include pornography, a right of similar importance? If it is, on what basis is it so?

I don't speak english, but I hear english thanks to the fish in my ear. :)

But the sensation when it slithers into your ear canal.... *shudder*

Golly!

Actually, what's surprised me is this thread is over 50 posts and no-one has blamed the Islamic conspiracy to Destroy Western Society, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, and True White Dutch Culture yet.

(Figured I'd pre-emptively mention those things.)

I figure you're acting like a prick. ;)

It is as simple as support free speech or not.

When it was a "known fact in the scientific world" that the coloured races were inferior, what would have happened if they had hate speech laws then?
Anybody saying that blacks were the equal of whites would have been jailed for inciting the blacks to violence on their white masters.

We can never be sure we are correct, and that history wont judge us poorly. 200 years from now, there may be things we think are fundamentally obvious, that just aren't any more. Thus supporting free speech is the only choice. We need free speakers to advance the good. The cost of this is that the good have to continually refute and debate against the speech of the bad.

Thanks to Soheran for taking up some of the argument. I'm going to return to a couple of things that got left.

I don't know where you live, but around here I can't imagine anyone being arrested solely for standing outside a house with a baseball bat. There'd probably have to be direct threats made as well.

Using the example of the group of men with baseball bats staring menacingly at a house, I think most homeowners would probably call the police. In Britain, the police could arrest them for a breach of the peace and possibly for carrying weapons (although that's obviously off topic).


Did you notice that my first reaction was that their fear was idiotic? My second reaction would indeed be to tell them that if they don't have a right not to feel threatened.

So, going back to the above example, you'd tell someone faced with a group of baseball bat wielding men that there's no right not to feel threatened?

Though frankly, I don't understand why Geert Wilder isn't charged with anything. I mean, other than the fact that he's an MP.

His hair alone is criminal.

To say nothing of his Nazi-esque spew.

Yours must be a sad existence, seeing Nazism behind every door.

Using the example of the group of men with baseball bats staring menacingly at a house, I think most homeowners would probably call the police. In Britain, the police could arrest them for a breach of the peace and possibly for carrying weapons (although that's obviously off topic).

So, going back to the above example, you'd tell someone faced with a group of baseball bat wielding men that there's no right not to feel threatened?

In Britain they could be convicted for assault, namely causing someone to fear harm.

first link works -- try babelfish for translation
second link works
third link works
fourthlink works -- try babelfish for translation
fifth isn't working
sixth works.

Not everyone on this forum is a native speaker of English, and surprisingly, Dutch is the native language of the Netherlands, so articles from the Netherlands about happenings in the Netherlands are rather unreasonably in that language. Rather than demand that the world cater to one's lack of initiative, it would be more expedient and better manners to use a free translation program or read the English articles without complaint.


1. Babelfish gives terrible translations, often causing misunderstandings as they often flatout translate it wrong.

2. While English isn't the native tounge of all here, all do indeed speak and read it, while less can be said about Dutch. So if one would wish the majority or all to understand the articles it would be better manners to put it in a language all understand, rather than be rude and put it in a language few do and than expect them to use translations services that don't work.

I was well within my right, and knew enough to get that babelfish is terrible and would have translated the articles incorrectly. Shocked someone as smart as you didn't know that.

Yours must be a sad existence, seeing Nazism behind every door.
Agreed. He's exactly the type of person you can't even have a conversation with because everything that doesn't conform to his view is nazi/racist/bigoted/xenophobic/right wing.

But the sensation when it slithers into your ear canal.... *shudder*Gah. Babelfish. The only good thing about its horrendous mistranslations is the occasional delightful Nazi RMB entries it helps create :p

1. Babelfish gives terrible translations, often causing misunderstandings as they often flatout translate it wrong.

2. While English isn't the native tounge of all here, all do indeed speak and read it, while less can be said about Dutch. So if one would wish the majority or all to understand the articles it would be better manners to put it in a language all understand, rather than be rude and put it in a language few do and than expect them to use translations services that don't work.

I was well within my right, and knew enough to get that babelfish is terrible and would have translated the articles incorrectly. Shocked someone as smart as you didn't know that.I kind of disagree, considering that I was the one who called him on providing support for his statement and I can read Dutch well enough to understand what is being said. The point wasn't really to have the majority understand the articles, the point was to have me understand the articles.

I kind of disagree, considering that I was the one who called him on providing support for his statement and I can read Dutch well enough to understand what is being said. The point wasn't really to have the majority understand the articles, the point was to have me understand the articles.


I can understand that, but there are others who would have liked to read the articles who don't speak Dutch, so it would seem polite to atleast try and find the same articles in English so we can read them and take part in this discussion, rather than being forced to use babelfish and not understand a word. I am not trying to make English the official language of the world, just trying to read and help others read an article not in a language we read. (Most of us anyway)

What counts as "harm"?
First person to answer correctly gets a free professorship at Harvard. :p

Free speech is clearly a massively important right, one so important that to enter the possibility of regulating it into the realm of policymaking is dangerous... Is free artistic expression, defined so as to include pornography, a right of similar importance? If it is, on what basis is it so?
Can we entirely separate the two? Is freedom of artistic expression not merely a sub-set of freedom of speech?

I don't speak english, but I hear english thanks to the fish in my ear. :)



I'm sorry, I have a sick sense of humor but I don't get what you mean.

I'm sorry, I have a sick sense of humor but I don't get what you mean.
It's a reference to the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_fish) by Douglas Adams.

There's always been something screwed-up about the Dutch anyway. I'm not the slightest bit surprised.

What I'm surprised about is how the Belgians and Germans can even stand being next to them.

Can we entirely separate the two?

Yes. Not on the basis of the literal meaning of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression", but based on the kind of justification we might give it: one founded on the political role of free speech protections as permitting the free discussion of opinions necessary for democracy.

I kind of disagree, considering that I was the one who called him on providing support for his statement and I can read Dutch well enough to understand what is being said. The point wasn't really to have the majority understand the articles, the point was to have me understand the articles.
It's got to be all about you doesn't Laerod? ;)
I can understand that, but there are others who would have liked to read the articles who don't speak Dutch...

The best solution is for you to learn Dutch.

The best solution is for you to learn Dutch.


Or be polite and find an english translation? BBC maybe? Why would anybody learn dutch for 2 articles?

Yes. Not on the basis of the literal meaning of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression", but based on the kind of justification we might give it: one founded on the political role of free speech protections as permitting the free discussion of opinions necessary for democracy.
But could this not also be applied to freedom of artistic expression? The political role of protections of artistic expression as permitting the free non-verbal discussion of opinions necessary for democracy.

Or be polite and find an english translation? BBC maybe? Why would anybody learn dutch for 2 articles?

You'd be learning Dutch so that if the situation ever came up again you'd be prepared...

:D

It's got to be all about you doesn't Laerod? ;)Hey, if the shoe fits! http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/ImperialSmiley.png

what makes this annoying is some how the US gets ranked behind countries like this in freedom.

what makes this annoying is some how the US gets ranked behind countries like this in freedom.Perhaps because freedom of speech isn't the only freedom there is? There's the freedom to get drunk and the freedom to run around naked, both of which are heavily restricted in the US.

Perhaps because freedom of speech isn't the only freedom there is? There's the freedom to get drunk and the freedom to run around naked, both of which are heavily restricted in the US.

and the freedom to smoke pot.

but the freedom to be naked offends Muslims I hear it might be restricted too.

The political role of protections of artistic expression as permitting the free non-verbal discussion of opinions necessary for democracy.

That's a rather narrow sense of "artistic expression." One that would exclude, for instance, most pornography.

I would like to say this is surprising, but unfortunately, I can't. I would say this is a good example of the police abusing their powers. It's not just a problem in the U.S after all eh?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/

A-hem... the very link you provided goes like this:
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday.

So, fail. /thread.

As opposed to their gender and sexual orientation?

I have to say that laws against hate speech, and classifying crimes as hate crimes, bothers me. If something is a crime, it's a crime and there is a punishment. When you start legislating against what people think it's a slippery slope.
I second that. It's the same thing with classifying certain crimes as "terrorism" even though it's the same as murder, or vandalism, or whatever was actually done.

He could just come to the US...we've certainly got more freedom of speech and expression.

Reporters Without Borders disagrees with you.

It ranks the Netherlands 12th for freedom of the press, and the USA 48th.

That's a rather narrow sense of "artistic expression." One that would exclude, for instance, most pornography.
Sure, but your definition of free speech is also similarly constrained; not all free speech need be directly political.

Link?


Haven't seen any of 'em. ;) Out of zero, I can say that all of the ones I've seen were incredibly racist. :p

My point was only that the prosecution seems to believe there was, so whether you or I have seen them is kinda moot.


The prosecutor hasn't even made a definite statement yet, only that he's been charged.


Indeed. Not enough info.

No, not from the pictures I have seen, and what do you mean unless they fail to prosecute?

Well, if the charges don't stick.

Hating Judaism is not racist, wanting to deport all Jews is not racist if you want to deport them based on what they believe (but the Jews have never really been persecuted simply for what they believe, which is why it's so convenient for you to constantly make this inane comparison, because you can simply say its the same with what's happening to the Muslims today).

Of COURSE the Jews have been persecuted for their beliefs. In WWII, being Jewish - regardless of "racially" Jewish (which is NOT the same thing) - was enough to get you persecuted. It didn't matter if you married or converted.

Plenty of people also take the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or whatever as a means to harp on how evil "Jewry" and Judaism is. The "Zionist" belief which has also been incriminated.

Because of that, I find it hard to believe that people (i.e Geert Wilders) could advocate all that anti-Jewish policies WITHOUT getting labeled as racist.

Persecuting a religious/ethnic minority is persecuting a religious/ethnic minority. Whether it's Muslims you want to send on leaky boats, or Jews. It's not an inane comparison but a valid one, which is why I've noticed many people who are afraid of/hate Muslims dislike it so much. No one wants to share anything in common with anti-semites. But the Muslim-haters do.

ok:



Notice the two are tied in the same law.


I saw that source, but I was hoping for an actual text of the law itself rather than a summary. Cuz the summary might have tied them together when the law itself might make a distinction. Certainly the legal text would clarify this, which is why I've been searching desperately for it.

(And by "desperately" I mean when I'm not working/masturbating.) :p

All evidence points that he is, there is no evidence that he has been charged with discriminating based on race. You are completely relying on the fact that the prosecutor said "or race", which doesn't mean that he did.

I'm relying on the fact that the prosecutor has charged the guy with a crime which does include the race aspect. You are relying on the "or" conditional to disavow that aspect and concentrate on the "belief" aspect.

But in this context, "belief" might be synonymous or tied-in with "race" or religion. Since as you say this is one law here. It might be erroneous to suggest that you can be charged with insulting anything that could be construed as simply any "belief."

Who gives a shit if his opinions are bullshit, arresting someone because in his opinion Muslims should be deported is disgraceful and fascist.

I was talking there about Geert Wilders, not the guy in the OP. Wilders has not been arrested. Frankly, I think he oughtta. Cartoons are not the problem with Europe, Europe's problem has historically been fascists who persecute and oppress their own people; Wilders certainly qualifies.

I figure you're acting like a prick. ;)

I resent that. I'm not acting!

Yours must be a sad existence, seeing Nazism behind every door.

Oh yes, it's so very sad. So sad that when I see a fucking fascist dipshit like Wilders spew his bile and filth, I can't help but call it like I see it. That's so sad. Boo, hoo. Go away.

not all free speech need be directly political.

Then give me a justification.

What's so special about this kind of "free speech" that we should exclude it from regulation on principle?

(Or should we not?)

Sickening. Just Sickening. Add the Netherlands to the list of nations pretending to be a functioning democracy, alongside my home country of Canada. At worst, he was just being a jerk, but freedom of speech allows people to have a offensive opinions, and its nessissary for democracy. Without freedom of speech, how can you have an open discussion of the issues, which is obviously required in a democratic society.:headbang:

Most likely of course they came down on him so hard because he was insulting Islam, which for all intents and purposes is provoking a riot, based on past historical examples. But that's no excuse. This is appeasement, plain and simple. This is a vindication of islamic fanatics. This is saying that in an allegedly democratic country, certain groups are immune to criticism, because we're afraid of them. This is proving that terror tactics work.:mad::(

I would like to say this is surprising, but unfortunately, I can't. I would say this is a good example of the police abusing their powers. It's not just a problem in the U.S after all eh?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/

Unless he wanted to bring attention to the anti-criticism-of-religion laws through his own arrest, he should have published anonymously.

Then give me a justification.

What's so special about this kind of "free speech" that we should exclude it from regulation on principle?

(Or should we not?)
Sorry; 'this kind of free speech'?

Are you referring to the Dutch cartoonist's stuff, non-political free speech, or something else?

Sorry; 'this kind of free speech'?

You said that my standard for free speech was too narrow, that "not all free speech need be directly political."

Whatever that kind of free speech encompasses is what I'm talking about.

You said that my standard for free speech was too narrow, that "not all free speech need be directly political."

Whatever that kind of free speech encompasses is what I'm talking about.
Ahh, all I was meaning was that if we allow free speech (with the caveat, perhaps, for disallowing speech that could directly cause great harm; shouting "fire!" in a theatre, etc.) because some speech is conducive to a free and open political process, then shouldn't we allow the freedom of artistic expression, as some art is also conducive to a free and open political process?

Sickening. Just Sickening. Add the Netherlands to the list of nations pretending to be a functioning democracy, alongside my home country of Canada. At worst, he was just being a jerk, but freedom of speech allows people to have a offensive opinions, and its nessissary for democracy. Without freedom of speech, how can you have an open discussion of the issues, which is obviously required in a democratic society.:headbang:

Most likely of course they came down on him so hard because he was insulting Islam, which for all intents and purposes is provoking a riot, based on past historical examples. But that's no excuse. This is appeasement, plain and simple. This is a vindication of islamic fanatics. This is saying that in an allegedly democratic country, certain groups are immune to criticism, because we're afraid of them. This is proving that terror tactics work.:mad::(

Define a "functioning democracy". Why isn't it possible to create disincentives for racist speech and still function?

So tell me, we should allow the KKK to go around and promote violence and prejudice against blacks? Racism is absolutely wrong, and in particular because it justifies oppression and violence. Could Africans have been enslaved, used, and abused for hundreds of years if it were not for the belief that they were inferior, if human at all? The very thought that Africans were living, breathing, regular humans would have made it morally impossible for most to engage in slavery, but racism allowed its justification.

In actuality, the man has had his opinions heard, and they've been heard for a while and will be heard for years to come. There nothing stopping him from racist speech, but there is a law against it and possibly a punishment at the end of the road.

Unless you have access to evidence the rest of us don't, we don't know for sure. If it's proven that he's incited hatred towards "Arabs" then he has broken a law. If this isn't the case, we'd all love to know and you can provide us with a link.

What is appeasement (I'm sorry, I have to check now every time someone uses this term)?

Really, we're afraid of Muslims?

Ahh, all I was meaning was that if we allow free speech (with the caveat, perhaps, for disallowing speech that could directly cause great harm; shouting "fire!" in a theatre, etc.) because some speech is conducive to a free and open political process,

But my whole point is that it makes no sense to conflate "free speech" in the narrow political sense I have defined with the broader sense of "free speech" you mention--that there is no convincing reason to exclude on principle those other kinds of speech from public regulation.

But my whole point is that it makes no sense to conflate "free speech" in the narrow political sense I have defined with the broader sense of "free speech" you mention--that there is no convincing reason to exclude on principle those other kinds of speech from public regulation.
So, to clarify, you believe 'political free speech' (for want of a better term) should be unregulated, but speech outside of the political sphere regulated in certain circumstances? I should be able to speak my mind freely on matters of politics, but at times regulated in what I say about non-political matters?

Define a "functioning democracy". Why isn't it possible to create disincentives for racist speech and still function?
Because free speech must be free on all things. You may limit free speech for minors, but adults must have a right to free speech.
So tell me, we should allow the KKK to go around and promote violence and prejudice against blacks? Racism is absolutely wrong, and in particular because it justifies oppression and violence. Could Africans have been enslaved, used, and abused for hundreds of years if it were not for the belief that they were inferior, if human at all?
About the KKK. Sadly yes. It is the job of righ thinking people to present a counter argument, and police to imprison anyone who does violence. About African enslavement, Absolutely not. But could they have been freed without free speech?

It was an accepted fact that blacks were inferior. Limiting free speech, and having hate laws, means a slave owner could reasonably have pressed charges against anyone saying blacks weren't inferior, as they were lowering the value of his possessions, and risking the lives of his family by inciting blacks to violence, and creating hatred within the blacks.

Are you so absolutely sure that we are so socially advanced that we should shut down minority viewpoints that the majority find offensive. Because at a time, the viewpoints that blacks weren't inferior was a minority viewpoint. I could also start about women being thought to be inferior as well.

For the record, he's broken the law. I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying the law is stupid and wrong.

I should be able to speak my mind freely on matters of politics, but at times regulated in what I say about non-political matters?

Yes, with two qualifications.

First, while the standard itself is relatively narrow, "matters of politics" is not. At all. I'd include, for instance, a broad swath of scientific knowledge and opinions not immediately political in that category.

Second, "at times", in my personal opinion, should be "almost never." It's just that I don't think this judgment is appropriate to make on principle. It requires considering how we should balance different social values (and is thus always somewhat subjective), and how much harm speech actually does (as opposed to the case of political free speech, which we must tolerate even if it is egregiously distressing and offensive--though not if, like hate speech, it directly contradicts the tolerant and democratic basis of protecting political free speech in the first place.)

Because free speech must be free on all things. You may limit free speech for minors, but adults must have a right to free speech.

About the KKK. Sadly yes. It is the job of righ thinking people to present a counter argument, and police to imprison anyone who does violence. About African enslavement, Absolutely not. But could they have been freed without free speech?

It was an accepted fact that blacks were inferior. Limiting free speech, and having hate laws, means a slave owner could reasonably have pressed charges against anyone saying blacks weren't inferior, as they were lowering the value of his possessions, and risking the lives of his family by inciting blacks to violence, and creating hatred within the blacks.

Are you so absolutely sure that we are so socially advanced that we should shut down minority viewpoints that the majority find offensive. Because at a time, the viewpoints that blacks weren't inferior was a minority viewpoint. I could also start about women being thought to be inferior as well.

For the record, he's broken the law. I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying the law is stupid and wrong.

I'll start with a clarification, I don't necessarily support the law in question, however I think only fools are racists.

So what constitutes as a minor, and why don't they have the right to free speech. There is absolutely no distinction, other than an arbitrary one.

Free speech? Right, that's why they protesters were thrown in jail. They had the same situation as this cartoonist, they exercised "free speech", and were punished all the same. The difference of course is that this cartoonist isn't necessarily fighting for a great cause.

Right, and what was the root of this assumption. Don't bull shit with me, Africans were the other, to whites, asians, middle easterners, everyone. Blacks were the other, and they were considered inferior because they were of a different race, often even for the very color of their skin. The root of the problem was racism. As well, you're applying a currently existent situation on the past in a way that doesn't work. I'm not advocating that minorities not be allowed to speak, rather, I'm arguing that people shouldn't advocate one's superiority based on an unchangeable factor such as race, the situation you present is the complete opposite.

Essentially, what you are saying is that the majority would be able to silence minorities, which isn't ok. Yet I advocate something that is irrelevant to majority or minority, that one should not advocate superiority of one's race, gender, etc. In other words, I am supporting a status quo that says that racism/sexism/etc. is definitely and unchangeably wrong. However, the opposition (you) is/are questioning whether racism is wrong, or do you think that racism could potentially be fine? Because that is the implication of your argument.

So to simplify above, why can't you ban racist speech if you believe that racism is unconditionally wrong?

I resent that. I'm not acting!



Well excuse me for CARING! *sobs*

This is a vindication of islamic fanatics.

Why not vindicate their fantasies instead. I have it on good athority that women covered in cloth makes em good and hard. If you know what I mean *wink wink nudge nudge*

Free speech must remain unrestricted to the greatest extent possible for the following reason, among others: You may find something offensive, but others will just as surely feel the same way about your beliefs. Everyone is offended by different things, and the views of different groups and individuals are often in direct contradiction to each other.

Therefore, it is impossible to ban everything offensive, and if you try, you will inevitably end up having to play favorites. An unofficial hierarchy devellopes: this group's free speech is more important than that group's free speech. At this point, your nieve effort to protect everybody's feelings has led right back to the very problem you were trying to solve, and the legislation intended to protect people from discrimination has become a tool for crushing political dissent. Ultimately, the most powerful group will again be censoring everyone else, quite possibly on the basis of race or religeon.

This is the paradoxical madness of politically correct censorship: it inevitably perpetuates the problems it is trying to solve. Because in the end it is still censorship like any other kind, and whatever the motive, censorship is simply a tool of oppression.

Despite the wars, the rampant conservatism, and the religiously-motivated bigotry of want-to-be theocrats, the US has certain values inshrined in its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution that are shining examples of what Humanity can be. One is the right to freedom of speech. If the US has one saving grace, it is its guarantee of freedom of expression.

So to simplify above, why can't you ban racist speech if you believe that racism is unconditionally wrong?
You missed my entire point. Centuries ago, in regard to racism and decades ago in regards to sexism, anyone positing that women or the inferior races were not inferior, were plain wrong, and could be seen to be inciting violence and hatred of men (in the women) and hatred of whites (in the blacks).
The reason I am referring to these, is at the time, the majority were absolutely sure they were right. Now, are you so absolutely sure, that looking through the lens of history 200 years from now, might not see something you think is obviously correct, to be horribly wrong.
Silencing people is wrong. The end. Even if what they say is hateful or dangerous. As many people of the time saw the sexism and equality movements. as dangerous, would you have liked them to be silenced. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence.

Why not?

Because this isn't some Nanny State for people who can't grow up. This is the real world and if your feelings get hurt, then too bad. If people have something to say, regardless of how stupid it is, they should be able to say it if they have the means to do so.

Quite alot of Europe has laws like this. E.g, In Austria it's illegal to publicly deny the Holocaust.

In the UK, unless what you say is a danger to national security it's fine. I think there might be some racial protection as well, but that works both ways.

Sometimes Free speech isn't a good thing. Even though you have the right to shout BOMB! on a London subway... DON'T. 17% of British police are armed, most in London, with Assault Rifles and Sub Machine Guns... Co pish?

Other than that, speech is pretty free here. I know some European countries have restrictions. But I'm unsure as to the extent.

Before people go D notice crazy.... The D notice is a request, and not legally binding.

First, while the standard itself is relatively narrow, "matters of politics" is not. At all. I'd include, for instance, a broad swath of scientific knowledge and opinions not immediately political in that category.
I broadly agree, though wouldn't this be awfully hard to encompass in legislation, for example?

Second, "at times", in my personal opinion, should be "almost never." It's just that I don't think this judgment is appropriate to make on principle. It requires considering how we should balance different social values (and is thus always somewhat subjective), and how much harm speech actually does.
Again, I broadly agree, with further worries that the job of identifying times when it would be appropriate to limit speech would be a hard one. Not that that's a bad thing in itself, mind, and a community with a decent level of free speech and pubic discussion would be well placed, I'd imagine, to challenge any limits they felt was unacceptable.

The Netherlands is a very special place. I would hesitate to scream blue murder when the Dutch police enforce race hate laws like that and call them close-minded or clamping down on freedoms or whatever. After all, it has one of the most liberal societies in the world: open prostitution, legal drug usage, open, public unirals, a very low church-going rate, and nearly more non-whites than whites (the last time I went anyway).

Sometimes Free speech isn't a good thing. Even though you have the right to shout BOMB! on a London subway... DON'T. 17% of British police are armed, most in London, with Assault Rifles and Sub Machine Guns... Co pish?
But what about my right to yell fire in a theatre? That is not free speech. Free speech is about your right to speak about ideas, not your right to do a prank.

But what about my right to yell fire in a theatre? That is not free speech. Free speech is about your right to speak about ideas, not your right to do a prank.

Was merely adding some light hearted humour.

After speaking to my Dutch Friend, he had this to say.

"Nekschot is known primarily for cartoons mocking Muslims and leftists, though the spokeswoman said he is a satirist who targets "any strong ideology."
We have free speech
But may not offend anyone =/"

From a Dutch person himself.

You missed my entire point. Centuries ago, in regard to racism and decades ago in regards to sexism, anyone positing that women or the inferior races were not inferior, were plain wrong, and could be seen to be inciting violence and hatred of men (in the women) and hatred of whites (in the blacks).
The reason I am referring to these, is at the time, the majority were absolutely sure they were right. Now, are you so absolutely sure, that looking through the lens of history 200 years from now, might not see something you think is obviously correct, to be horribly wrong.
Silencing people is wrong. The end. Even if what they say is hateful or dangerous. As many people of the time saw the sexism and equality movements. as dangerous, would you have liked them to be silenced. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence.

And this is where we reach the root of the question, are there a knowable, eternal, truths? If so, and we determine that "racism is bad" is true, then would it not be acceptable to restrict hateful speech?

Though to another discussion, is putting someone in jail actually silencing them? One can still create material from jail, and the sentence surely won't be long, if he gets it at all.