The Divide Between What is Permissible Versus Acceptable Freedom of Expression
Submitted by Charles Knighton
“The running father-daughter feud escalated into a political crisis after the party decision Monday to suspend the senior Le Pen for reiterating anti-Semitic remarks that got him convicted in French courts in the past.” Family feud rocks top of France’s National Front party” – National Post [BU]
Following the horrific attacks at the Charlie Hebdo offices, in which Islamic terrorists executed journalists who published satirical cartoons critical of Islam, the West reacted with a widespread show of solidarity.
The Twitter hashtag, #JeSuisCharlie became the most tweeted of all time and signified that, no matter how one feels about radical Islam, all can agree that speech should be supported and protected. The following “unity rally” in Paris, with almost 4 million people in attendance, and dozens of world leaders marching together, overflowed with messages in support of free speech.
But the uncomfortable sleeper issue few still seem unwilling to discuss is that, for all the images of photogenic Europeans on street corners holding “JeSuisCharlie” signs, or of Angela Merkel and David Cameron huddled together, Europe long ago abandoned any pretence as being a bastion of free speech. This birthplace of the Enlightenment began to allow “progressive” notions of what is acceptable speech to dictate what is permissible speech.
Many, if not most, of the world leaders at that rally’s front lines hailed from nations only too willing to criminalize expression, including the prime minister of Turkey, a nation leading the world in journalist imprisonment. The irony was overwhelming.
And, only a short time later, liberals in the United States were beginning to backpedal, noting civilized speech has “limits” and must be used “responsibly,” somehow failing to realize that placing restrictions on free speech is, well, not free speech at all.
Most of Western Europe is now planted thick with laws restricting all manner of “offensive” speech. Despite David Cameron’s assurances that Britain will never give up on freedom of speech, the United Kingdom boasts the Public Order Act, a dangerous law banning “abusive” speech, which critics say has strangled free speech. In Sweden it is now illegal to criticize illegal immigration, and last year a pastor was imprisoned for one month over a sermon against homosexuality. Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and yes, France, have alarming laws regulating what can and cannot be uttered.
Thanks to the efforts of politically correct progressives, America is beginning to resemble its European brethren, with college campuses being Ground Zero for the assault on free speech. The foundation for Individual Rights in Education finds that 58 percent of American universities have speech codes prohibiting or penalizing CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED speech.
Perhaps most troubling is an October 2014 poll finding a majority of Democrats support “hate speech” laws. How is it that so many of the same individuals who are so quick to champion the idea of free speech support the ridiculous notion of hate speech?
The West must make up its mind. Either it upholds free speech across the board or it abandons our most fundamental value and capitulates to a pattern of brutal censorship and inconsistent, irrational application. Personally, I find Jean-Marie le Pen’s philosophy vile, but no matter. We either practice #JeSuisCharlie or we do not.
Is the West, is America, is France itself, the land of Voltaire and he who is (although apocryphally) credited as proclaiming: “I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” truly willing to stand by this noble ideal? Their words always promise fealty to this ideal, while their actions steadily undermine same.
Barbados Underground 
Pingback: The Divide Between What is Permissible Versus Acceptable Freedom of Expression
I dont know how that posted before I was done, all I did was hit the enter key, I think.
I will try to put some early spin on this before it shifts into the domain of free speech in the first world countries of the world where there are well established systems of “how things operate” across and among multi-ethnic populations that number in the millions as opposed to 250,000.
The Constitution say of the United States of America, Land of Free Speech, notwithstanding the retribution murder of Gary Webb the reporter who broke the US CIA sponsored Nicaraguan Gun/Cocaine Scandal, is an extremely well crafted document considering that it was crafted AFTER Independence in 1776.
The Declaration of Independence evolved from the Confederation of States and when that was seen not to be working the Constitution was crafter to replace that upon which followed the Bill of Rights.
The point is that it evolved within an environment where people were constantly reviewing what they had done, and how it was working.
Freedom of Speech is one of the pillars of that Constitution, in fact it is the First Amendment which speaks to the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas.
Come home to our region, particularly Barbados and the climate where, there is an understandable? fear to exercise what is not only a right enshrined in the Human Rights Declarations that we are signatories to, but what is part of our Constitution.
It is however noted that here in Barbados the Right to Free Expression is a right that is exercised by the select few namely the party in power, and sometimes the opposition (rather those of its members who in previous administrations, or in their private lives were not part of any fiduciary infelicity which translates into ZERO) and of course the privileged roughly translated as the 5% whites with money and the “ascended” the “powful” (foolish) black socialites and friends of the minister.
Our system of “free speech” has impotent.
Since Eric ‘Fly” Sealy (political aspirant) Dean Harold Crithlow (a priest with balls) our society has become passive and fearful living in dread of the repercussions of exercising what is a basic right!!
We run around under the cloak of night fearful of saying “Mr. Minister that is wrong, you cant hire your niece in the face of other qualified personnel” or “this awarding of this contract to build the New Water Works Department to ?? without a public bid is against the Public administration rules”
The list of improprieties is long and moves from millions of dollars skimmed off for personal gain to a ream of paper and rolls of toilet paper that I, Public Servant am accustomed carrying home every week for my children who are at samuel jackman prescod or my family.
Whistleblowing, snitch and similar words are what are ascribed to people with the balls to stand up and exercise their right of Free Speech and say to the various scoundrels, “this is wrong”
The issue as the topic relates to Barbados more specifically is “WHO permits it to be acceptable?”
LikeLike
Restrictions that are based on people’s reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ AC
I can understand (sort of) what you are saying.
Anti-semitism and other hate speech is not admissible and I am not talking about slander or libel.
Me saying “you are a gud piece of female rabbit” is not the same as me saying “I know that you are a wicker” There are limits (even though the DLP, when it is on the political platform will periodically tek a swing at “Mummy why you bite out my clitoris”)
There are boundaries.
I myself was recently the brunt of a cruel joke at no less a place than the church this Sunday past.
Yes, I know that you would be concerned for the olde man and I therefore will share what happened with you.
One of the young men there was reciting a story about the Old Empire Theatre in Bridgetown and he said that “Methuselah” (that is what they call me) “was so old that I used to carry my children there when it was open back in the day”
He went on to say that apparently one day I hid my ingrunt self (no relation to de ingrunt word) and went in the Empire with the oldest boy in 1970, when a Kung Fu picture was showing (he added that I was 70 then)
Well anyway, half way in the picture the Silver Fox bad guy had was to give instructions to “Kill all the Ole mens, and children in the village” and Methuselah wid he ingrunt self, since I din unnerstand nuffin bout de theatre, thought that it was fuh real, grab me son hand,, and run screaming down Bay Street hollering bout how “i shudda stan home” and “look how I bring me and de granson to get kill in town”
I see dat yo gots a good appreciation of this topic of “diminshed protection” fuh me an ole man being hurt by this “speech that incited them young mens and wumens at we church to laugh at the ole man”
I tank you for your kind words and I have voted for you…
LikeLike
false statements of fact
LikeLike
We live in a world where strong debates on both sides of almost all issues are possible. It will be a challenge henceforth to strive for balance.
LikeLike
FYI, like pieceuhderockyeahright, I found my earlier post cut off prematurely and posted to the thread before I could complete the post.
“False statements of fact”
That one can get a bit tricky as a person’s honestly held “statement of facts” as he/she sees the facts might differ from, say, a government’s statement of facts or the statement of facts as reported in the mainstream media. E.g. The US government and mainstream media sources would have us believe the fact is that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were the sole participants in the planning and carrying out of the Oklahoma City bombing and there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
Twenty Years Later: Facts About the OKC Bombing That Go Unreported
Posted on April 12, 2015 by Kevin Ryan
Next week will mark the 20th anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people including 19 children. The mainstream media will undoubtedly focus its attention on Timothy McVeigh, who was put to death in June 2001 for his part in the crime. They might also mention Terry Nichols, who was convicted of helping McVeigh plan the bombing and is serving a life sentence without parole.
There will be less discussion about how the FBI spent years hunting for a man who witnesses say accompanied McVeigh on the day of the bombing. They called this accomplice John Doe #2 and theories about his identity range from an Iraqi named Hussain Al-Hussaini, to a German national described below, to a neo-nazi bank robber named Richard Guthrie. The Justice Department finally gave up its search and said it was all a mistake— that there was never any credible evidence of a John Doe #2 being involved.
That reversal demonstrates a pattern of cover-up by authorities and limited media coverage in the years since the crime. This week, accounts will not repeat early reports of secondary devices in the building, or reports of the involvement of unknown middle-eastern characters. There will also be little if any mention of the extensive independent investigation into the crime that was conducted by leading members of the OKC community. Here are seven more facts that will probably not see much coverage on the 20th anniversary.
Continued: http://911blogger.com/news/2015-04-12/twenty-years-later-facts-about-okc-bombing-go-unreported
LikeLike
Freedom of speech is not “absolute”..However if and when the moral fabic of a society is being chip away or eroded by deeds or actions . Then the right of govt to protect their citizens from fear of harm or danger supersedes the right to cause catastrophic harm to innocent people.
Govt actions should not be obscured or blinded through a lens of political correctness but way should be given to that which is in the best interest and protection of a society
LikeLike
Unacceptable in my book
#ConservativeHatriots #whitesplain why #BaltimoreRiots are wrong
#WhatRacismSoundsLike
#WhitePrivilege
LikeLike
And for those keen photographers
http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/airlines-aren%E2%80%99t-clear-about-their-photography-policies/ar-BBjs5tQ
LikeLike
Canadian Gov’t Says Free Speech is for Offending Muslims, Not Opposing Israel
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, January 8, 2015, on Charlie Hebdo shootings:
“When a trio of hooded men struck at some of our most cherished democratic principles, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, they assaulted democracy everywhere . . . They have declared war on anybody who does not think and act exactly as they wish they would think and act . . . . they have declared war on any country, like ourselves, that values freedom, openness and tolerance.”
CBC, today:
“Ottawa threatening hate charges against those who boycott Israel”
The Harper government is signaling its intention to use hate crime laws against Canadian advocacy groups that encourage boycotts of Israel.
snip
In that regard, Stephen Harper is the perfect Poster Boy for how free expression is tribalistically manipulated and exploited in the West. When the views being suppressed are ones amenable to those in power (e.g., cartoons mocking Islam), free speech is venerated; attempts to suppressthose kinds of ideas show that “they have declared war on any country, like ourselves, that values freedom, openness and tolerance.” We get to celebrate ourselves as superior and progressive and victimized, and how good that feels. But when ideas are advocated that upset those in power (e.g. speech by Muslims critical of Western nations and their allies), the very same people acquiesce to, or expressly endorse, full-scale suppression. Thus can the Canadian Prime Minister pompously parade around as some sort of Guardian of Enlightenment Ideals only, three months later, to act like the classic tyrant.
http://govtslaves.info/canadian-govt-says-free-speech-is-for-offending-muslims-not-opposing-israel/
LikeLike