Michael Savage Banned from the UK

[alfred russel]

Incidentally, I think you guys are forgetting that Europe and the US have quite different models of freedom of speech, and this doesn't just boil down to whether we ban or allow hate speech.

For example, while the framework of speech protection in most European countries is perhaps narrower than in the US, we are also big on the economic aspects of freedoms. For example, you cannot be discriminated in employment because of your opinions; parties get alloted airtime on public media during election campaigns etc.

We just do things differently here.

Actually, I don't think we are forgetting that there are differences between countries. With only a few of us from the UK, we are naturally going to discuss other countries as well.

Also, your economic "freedom" may be considered less free from another perspective. In Europe, you may have the freedom to express certain opinions without fear of losing your job, but then in Europe as an employer I may have less freedom to employ whom I choose. It is debatable which is more free, but certainly the European model is less libertarian. (I also think the differences between Europe and America are less black and white--there are significant labor protections here)

[grumbler]

Incidentally, I think you guys are forgetting that Europe and the US have quite different models of freedom of speech, and this doesn't just boil down to whether we ban or allow hate speech.

Incidentally, I think you are forgetting that different Europe countries have quite different models of freedom of speech, and this doesn't just boil down to whether one country  bans or allows hate speech.  "Europe" is not unified on this issue.

For example, while the framework of speech protection in most European countries is perhaps narrower than in the US, we are also big on the economic aspects of freedoms. For example, you cannot be discriminated in employment because of your opinions; parties get alloted airtime on public media during election campaigns etc.

In the US, you cannot be discriminated against because of mere opinion, either.  In the US, we are bigger believers in the economic aspects of freedoms.  For example, a media owner cannot be forced to allocate time to a party during election campaigns, and our media owners are free from competition from state-run media (in fact, US law prohibits government ownership of media that broadcasts or publishes in the US, though obviously not ones that target foreigners like RFE, etc).

We just do things differently here.

And here and there and everywhere.

This isn't a difference between "the US" and "Europe."  Certainly there is a difference between Poland (at least as represented by you) and the US.  You regard government mandates as "freedoms" while in the US they are generally considered to be the opposite.

[saskganesh]

I didn't post this when it went down, but I think it's relevant. remember Ahenakew? He was the senile Indian chief who made remarks about teh joos causing WW2?

In 2003 in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew with wilfully promoting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. The Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000. In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal.[13] On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew's remarks were "revolting, disgusting, and untrue," but they did not constitute "promoting hatred." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

the judge's decision is significant. here's another summary of another
controversial case:

in June 1997, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that Hugh Owens had breached the Human Rights Code by placing in a newspaper an advertisement that gave citations for passages in the Bible. The passages condemn homosexual behaviour. Owens appealed. The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the Tribunal. Owens appealed. In 2006, the Court of Appeal reversed the Tribunal's decision. [16]

it's interesting that while the Human Rights Commissions seem to have considerable power, their decisions are often (?) overruled by higher authorities. so I am left to wonder how viable Hate Speech legislation and the autonomous Human Rights Tribunals are within the Canadian justice system.

there's other examples: Levent and the Danish cartoons, Maclean's magazine, FreeDominion.ca. The first two were actually dismissed at the Commission level. I am wondering is it simply too easy to launch a Hate Crimes complaint?

[grumbler]

I didn't post this when it went down, but I think it's relevant. remember Ahenakew? He was the senile Indian chief who made remarks about teh joos causing WW2?

In 2003 in Saskatchewan, the Crown charged David Ahenakew with wilfully promoting hatred because of the remarks he made about Jews to a reporter. The Court convicted Ahenakew, and fined him $1,000. In 2008, the Attorney General for Saskatchewan decided to retry the matter after the conviction was overturned on appeal.[13] On 23 February 2009, Judge Wilfred Tucker of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court said Ahenakew's remarks were "revolting, disgusting, and untrue," but they did not constitute "promoting hatred." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

I find it interesting that the terminology is "promoting hatred."  Seems a dangerously low standard, as well as an unnecessary one:  society really does not have a vested interest in preventing the promotion of attitudes.  Behaviors, yes.  Attitudes, no.

the judge's decision is significant. here's another summary of another
controversial case:

in June 1997, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal held that Hugh Owens had breached the Human Rights Code by placing in a newspaper an advertisement that gave citations for passages in the Bible. The passages condemn homosexual behaviour. Owens appealed. The Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the Tribunal. Owens appealed. In 2006, the Court of Appeal reversed the Tribunal's decision. [16]

it's interesting that while the Human Rights Commissions seem to have considerable power, their decisions are often (?) overruled by higher authorities. so I am left to wonder how viable Hate Speech legislation and the autonomous Human Rights Tribunals are within the Canadian justice system.

While I think Human Rights Tribunals are debatably good, I think that their having anything to do with speech is probably quite bad.  The "Human Right" to be free of exposure to speech one finds offensive is one of those "rights" that is more dangerous to society than the speech it is attempting to suppress.

there's other examples: Levent and the Danish cartoons, Maclean's magazine, FreeDominion.ca. The first two were actually dismissed at the Commission level. I am wondering is it simply too easy to launch a Hate Crimes complaint?

I would argue that it is.

[MadImmortalMan]

Hate is a motive. Not a crime.

[Martinus]

Well, I prefer the system we have here. Freedom of speech (like any other right) is not absolute, and we have had enough bad experiences with hate speech leading to atrocities in Europe, that we do not really want to protect it.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, I prefer the system we have here. Freedom of speech (like any other right) is not absolute, and we have had enough bad experiences with hate speech leading to atrocities in Europe, that we do not really want to protect it.

One would think you had had your fill of thought police too.

[AnchorClanker]

I'm not considering vetting free speech, but rather requiring a license to use the venue, which is NOT unconstitutional; if it was, the FCC could not require stations to have operating licenses, because they couldn't enforce violations.\

The moment you define violation to include unpleasant political speech, you are restricting free speech.

If Savage has done something libelous or illegal, then sue or arrest him. The FCC, no matter how much the Dems might screech for it, is not in the business of vetting opinions.

Agreed.  Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut.  Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed.  Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut.  Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.

Seems  the Dems are the only ones talking about resurrecting Equal Time. 

[AnchorClanker]

Agreed.  Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut.  Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.

Seems  the Dems are the only ones talking about resurrecting Equal Time.

I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were.  It's not 'banning' speech.
Were they to propose a gag order, that would be censorship, and would be unacceptable.

[Berkut]

Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut.  Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.

In general it is not, in the particular, it is. Right now, it is only the Dems who are doing anything to try to restrict via legislation what the market has failed to do for them - namely create someone or something to counter-balance right wing radio.

It won't go anywhere, so I am not really worried about it, but it is rather revolting. Hell, stuff like this always has some feel good title like the "fairness doctrine".

[Admiral Yi]

I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were.  It's not 'banning' speech.
Were they to propose a gag order, that would be censorship, and would be unacceptable.

Leaving aside Throbby's point, if that's not an example of gagging what are the manifestations of this desire on both sides to gag?

[AnchorClanker]

Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut.  Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.

In general it is not, in the particular, it is. Right now, it is only the Dems who are doing anything to try to restrict via legislation what the market has failed to do for them - namely create someone or something to counter-balance right wing radio.

It won't go anywhere, so I am not really worried about it, but it is rather revolting. Hell, stuff like this always has some feel good title like the "fairness doctrine".

Well, it's not like they are conjuring this up from nowhere... we had a fairness act until 1987, when it was removed.
I'm not clear on the issues surrounding this reversal, but it's not like this is something new.

[Berkut]

Also, this isn't a partisan issue, Berkut.  Both sides really dig gagging their opponents.

In general it is not, in the particular, it is. Right now, it is only the Dems who are doing anything to try to restrict via legislation what the market has failed to do for them - namely create someone or something to counter-balance right wing radio.

It won't go anywhere, so I am not really worried about it, but it is rather revolting. Hell, stuff like this always has some feel good title like the "fairness doctrine".

Well, it's not like they are conjuring this up from nowhere... we had a fairness act until 1987, when it was removed.
I'm not clear on the issues surrounding this reversal, but it's not like this is something new.

Well, it is one of those things that are fine, or not fine, depending on how it is applied. In fact, I think the USSC said pretty much exactly that. It has the potential to violate free speech, but does not necessarily.

The use that the Dems which to put it to is, IMO, a violation of free speech. It is a straighforward attempt to force radio stations to air their views even if the listeners don't want to listen to them, after their rather spectacular failure at doing so themselves.

I am not sure why they bother - talk radio is shit anyway, with an audience that is either braindead, insanely partisan and radical, or simply amused to listen to the former. None of these people are important for the Dems to preach to. Besides, they already have NPR for that anyway!

[derspiess]

I don't really see a problem with the fairness doctrine, as it were. 

It's not 'banning' speech.

It can severely limit speech.  Why else do you think the Dems keep mentioning it?