Is this freedom of speech ?

[AJBryant]

You called that right.

 

[Emoni]

To be honest, I often feel that there is a huge disconnect between the concept that is trying to be expressed from one side, to the other in the case of Hezam and others. I believe that his interpretation of what free speech is isn't actually what the definition we are using matches, or rather I believe there is a major misinterpretation going on here simply do to life growing up in a culture where such ideas aren't necessarily explained well, or at all.

Hell, look at the US. People scream about freedom of speech, but look how many seek to actually LIMIT speech in general! Even if the US there is a great deal of misunderstanding with huge groups that seek to promote censorship in various forms.

Of all the things Hezam says and talks about, I think that he carefully explained from the ground up, he would likely agree with the concept that Derfel is attempting to explain. However, only of Hezam is willing to disconnect his own interpretation and baggage he has collected over the years about his own opinions of what the phrase "freedom of speech" entails, as there seems to be a lot of unconnected preconceptions that simply are unrelated.

... then again I'm in a very good mood and feeling happy on a rare occasion so I could just be being too naive.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Would burning the Koran be allowed in European nations that ban "hate speech"?

 

[Hezam]

Would burning the Koran be allowed in European nations that ban "hate speech"?

It depends on what will happen after burning Quran or any Holy book,What will we get from such stupid/Unresposible acts ? if you know then you can decide wether it should be banned or not.
You have to think in a perfect socity,Resposible and free from haterd and all what encrease the hate inside that socity.
And by the way,When you find the right way of thinking you should accept it and don't let your Ego control you cuz it's for the sake of good/safe/perfect world.

 

[Haruspex]

Of all the things Hezam says and talks about, I think that he carefully explained from the ground up, he would likely agree with the concept that Derfel is attempting to explain. However, only of Hezam is willing to disconnect his own interpretation and baggage he has collected over the years about his own opinions of what the phrase "freedom of speech" entails, as there seems to be a lot of unconnected preconceptions that simply are unrelated.

He is against acts which are either clearly covered by freedom of speech, but most EU countries would consider some freedom of expression, which, ultimately, changes nothing in how it is approached. He is opposed to these forms of speech/expression, and so we may be talking past each other in certain regards, there is also a genuine conflict.
It must be recognised that both freedom of speech and freedom of expression are abstract concepts and while they are considered as falling into the group of human rights, they are not rights in the proper sense. They are liberties and their portrayal as rights is misleading. When they are referred to as rights, it seems to appear that they are, on an institutional level, encouraged, eg it is encouraged to burn scripture, speak out against minorities and foreign nations, etc. This would leave people thinking that on an institutional level western countries are spreading hatred and intolerance, which is untrue. Freedom of speech and expression are negative in application, they preclude interference vertically and horizontally in certain cases. They encourage nothing, they prevent the imposition of values and rules. In modern democratic societies it is thought that as regards thought, all persons are on an equal footing. We are all equally competent to form any manner of opinions. The plural nature of society is recognised and persons are allowed, freely, to impart, receive and apply information, which allows a much more objective analysis than is possible in countries where there are no such freedoms.
Countries where freedom of speech does not exist are, intellectually, stagnant. The laws regulating human behaviour exist for a practical reason and are indispensable, but there is no need for laws regulating thoughts. If I, as the legislature of a country, disallow the burning of Bibles, I am effectively preventing people from communicating their disapproval of Christianity. I am labeling a set of thoughts as so wicked in nature that they ought not exist in the minds of the people. I am acting as an arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. Now, this is evidently quite f*cking stupid. No one belonging to our species is in a position to be an arbiter of morality, from a secular perspective. But one may ask: Why, then, do we not switch to a theistic or other heavily moralistic perspective? And the answer is: **** off. We don't want to. We like being regarded as capable beings who are allowed thoughts of their own.

I am hopeful that this will, at least partially, clarify.

Would burning the Koran be allowed in European nations that ban "hate speech"?

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides -

1, Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2, The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

If it doesn't carry the risk of criminal behaviour, most probably not. It may be caught by the morality bit, but with the prevailing moral atmosphere, most countries are quite lenient and morality is used more for stuff like foetus earrings (as in, made out of) and suchlike. There is no consensus as to whether 'hate speech' laws are necessary in a democratic society. Even if 'hate speech' was caught, an application could lie to the European Court of Human Rights, but since the treaty is incorporated with differing powers in member states, the outcome could be unchanged as regards the hate speech law. Eg the UK is not under an obligation to amend incompatible domestic legislation, but often does so regardless.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Thanks for that info, but the outcome seems uncertain.

What do you think would happen there if someone burned a Koran publicly in the UK?

 

[Haruspex]

Thanks for that info, but the outcome seems uncertain.

It is uncertain. It is, ultimately, an issue whether there is applicable domestic legislation in force, whether the state concerned has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights in a way that makes it binding and supreme and if not whether the state is willing to defer on policy grounds, whether the European Court of Human Rights recognises a valid interest the law is protecting. The Court may also defer with reference to the characteristics of a state (held in Sahin v Turkey: 'The principle of secularism as elucidated by the Constitutional Court was the paramount consideration underlying the ban on the wearing of religious symbols in universities.', although it concerned Article 9) With so many variables, it is hard to tell what would happen in a case involving such a controversial issue as hate speech laws.

What do you think would happen there if someone burned a Koran publicly in the UK?

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amends the Public Order Act 1986 to include the crime of religious hatred. Ss.18(1)(a)-(b) of the 1986 Act provide:

(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

S.29B of the same act provides:

(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred

S.29J of the 2006 Act provides on religious hatred:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

29J mitigates 29B quite a bit. I think more extreme acts encouraging criminality or severe actions against persons of a religion would be caught. I wouldn't call the European Court of Human Rights a passionately activist court, but they can be pretty damn ardent from time to time.

Westminster legislation is valid even if it is in violation of the Convention, thanks to the UK being a dualistic state, so there may be no remedy at all or for a long while for the person caught by the provisions. Domestic legislation is clear, the ECtHR's treatment of the issue is unclear and the domestic legislature's treatment of the ECtHR's judgement is, again, unclear.

I cannot provide any more clarity, I think. It's mainly English law, so I've not really dealt with the matter in much depth, but the idea of hate speech laws is quite unpopular in Scotland.