UK: Dutch MP Geert Wilders refused entry to UK

I sometimes think that there is a difference between US & UK ideas of what "freedom of speech" means. That is, many Americans think that every person should be allowed to say or write absolutely whatever they like, period. However here in Britain many people, most perhaps, would agree that there are limits to what can be tolerated in the way of hate speech and social divisiveness.

I sometimes think that there is a difference between US & UK ideas of what "freedom of speech" means. That is, many Americans think that every person should be allowed to say or write absolutely whatever they like, period. However here in Britain many people, most perhaps, would agree that there are limits to what can be tolerated in the way of hate speech and social divisiveness.

American isn't a land of free-for-all. Law there provides for commonsense limits to free speech just like in the U.K.

I sometimes think that there is a difference between US & UK ideas of what "freedom of speech" means. That is, many Americans think that every person should be allowed to say or write absolutely whatever they like, period. However here in Britain many people, most perhaps, would agree that there are limits to what can be tolerated in the way of hate speech and social divisiveness.

I was discussing this with my girlfriend earlier today, and now that it's come up here, I looked up the limits on free speech in the US, and there's a good article that sums it up here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/freedom-of-speech-in-the-united-states

The part that is most relevant to this discussion is here:

During the 1980s and 1990s, a number of laws were passed that attempted to regulate or ban "hate speech," defined as utterances, displays, or expressions of racial, religious, or sexual bias. The Court has generally invalidated such laws on the ground that they infringe First Amendment rights. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992), the Court invalidated the city of St. Paul's hate-crime ordinance, saying that it unconstitutionally infringed free speech. The defendant had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of an African American family's residence.

As Geert Wilders isn't a US citizen, I don't know how the US Immigration/State Department would handle him trying to enter the US to make a speech.

... Court invalidated the city of St. Paul's hate-crime ordinance, saying that it unconstitutionally infringed free speech.

So you could make a film advocating the extermination of (say) Muslims in gas-chambers and distribute it without fear of prosecution?

So you could make a film advocating the extermination of (say) Muslims in gas-chambers and distribute it without fear of prosecution?

Unless the court finds it an immediate threat or an incitement to violence, yeah. What kind of media do you think white supremacist groups distribute?

So you could make a film advocating the extermination of (say) Muslims in gas-chambers and distribute it without fear of prosecution?

What law would you have broken in this example that would lead to your arrest and prosecution?

That's not meant to be a wise-ass answer.

I don't think so.  But JM seemed to have missed The Reformation.

Sorry. I should have explained further.  I didn't miss the Reformation.  It was in the news earlier last year, that Roman Catholics now outnumber Anglicans in Britain.

So, when complaints were made, charges were brought.  Sounds like a good process to me!

Sorry, but it doesn't wash.  If a hundred people wearing NF shirts went marching through a Muslim area in front of dozens of cops shouting "Death to Islam" and carrying placards saying "Kill all the Muslims" can you really see the police not taking action immediately against some of them, or the CPS not trying to press charges until weeks later after complaints had been filed?     

It's this disparity of treatment which many people find extremely worrying, and examples of it appear with alarming, and increasing, regularity.

Remember the incident I posted last year some time about the English girl being attacked by Muslim youths?   Her "crime" was daring to walk down a street in her town which had a large number of Muslim inhabitants.  Apparently they took exception to her typically British summer attire in "their" street, and name calling turned to physical assault with rocks and other missiles being thrown.  After running away and reaching a police station, the response from P.C. (and I don't mean Police Constable) Plod was not only complete disinterest in the crime she was reporting (physical assault), but a dismissive comment that it was her own fault for walking through there dressed like that, and an accusation that she herself was being "racist and provocative" for doing so!     

If that had been a Muslim girl attacked by white English youths, you can bet there'd have been a "racial hate crime" investigation started faster than you can say "we don't want Muslims in our street."

The converse situation is illustrated well by other incidents such as the 10-year-old white boy who ended up being investigated by the police at his school for calling his non-white classmate some silly schoolboy name. 

So, anti-Israel="spewing hate", and anti-Islam="free speech"?

You seem to be missing the huge gulf which exists between simply stating one's dislike for something and going out trying to stir people up into a lynch mob and actually threatening physical violence.

Roman Catholics now outnumber Anglicans in Britain.

That doesn't make Britain a "Catholic country" at all. Anyway, It's not true. There are around 25 million baptised Anglicans in Britain, and around 4 million Catholics. A couple of years ago, there were stories in the press that the number of Catholics attending church services on Sundays was set to overtake the number of Anglicans who did so. The numbers had been level at around 1 million each, and it was envisaged that the influx of people from Catholic countries such as Poland would make the Catholic attendance surge ahead slightly. It now seems as if this effect is not going to be as large as predicted, if it happens at all, thanks to the recession.

You seem to be missing the huge gulf which exists between simply stating one's dislike for something and going out trying to stir people up into a lynch mob and actually threatening physical violence.

And in jw's example, which one's which? If you sub "anti-Muslim" for "anti-Israel" in to jw's description, would that meet your definition of a lynch mob?

He should have the right of free speech to advocate the banning of the book, so not ironic at all.

So, in his use of free speech he seeks to prevent anothers use of free speech - in my opinion that is when the line is crossed. Free speech comes with responsibility.

And in jw's example, which one's which? If you sub "anti-Muslim" for "anti-Israel" in to jw's description, would that meet your definition of a lynch mob?

I'm not sure I could call it a lynch mob since I wasn't there to observe what was going on first hand, but it certainly sounds as though it was pretty ugly. 

But whether that anti-Israel demonstration overstepped the mark between free speech and incitement to violence is secondary to the issue of the disparity of treatment between demonstrations such as that and the banning of a Dutch politician who wanted to do nothing more than provide a private screening of a film which simply points out the violence of certain Muslims.

So, in his use of free speech he seeks to prevent anothers use of free speech - in my opinion that is when the line is crossed. Free speech comes with responsibility.

Those kinds of situations always amuse me now cause of a book I read like ten years ago. The narrator describes a woman who was one of those who went on TV and around the country preaching traditional values and that women belong in the home, and should dress modestly, etc etc and it came to pass that there was a revolution, and the country became a theocracy and the woman's now living the life she preached, stuck at home, depressed that (as the narrator put it) she was taken at her word.

So it probably goes for people who use the freedom of speech to preach against it: they probably won't be happy if ever the world takes them at their word.

I think this is blown out of all proportion.

Someone has been charged with a crime in an EU country.  The crime with which he has been charged is also a crime in the UK.  Therefore, he is not being allowed to enter.

It doesn't really matter what that crime is, this is pretty standard stuff, and nothing to do with freedom of speech, but really to do with stopping alleged criminals from coming to the UK.

Vicky

Those kinds of situations always amuse me now cause of a book I read like ten years ago. The narrator describes a woman who was one of those who went on TV and around the country preaching traditional values and that women belong in the home, and should dress modestly, etc etc and it came to pass that there was a revolution, and the country became a theocracy and the woman's now living the life she preached, stuck at home, depressed that (as the narrator put it) she was taken at her word.

So it probably goes for people who use the freedom of speech to preach against it: they probably won't be happy if ever the world takes them at their word.

The Handmaid's Tale I think.