5 Apr 2011 | Uncategorized
President Karzai of Afghanistan has called for the Obama administration to condemn the recent Koran-burning in Florida by Pastor Wayne Sapp. The symbolic immolation of the book led to riots that left 22 dead. Obama has obliged by describing it as an act of “extreme intolerance and bigotry”. But Karzai wants Obama to go further and “bring those responsible to justice”.
It is not clear what that would mean in the US. First Amendment free speech protection doesn’t discriminate on the basis of the content of speech short of its posing a direct threat to others. Offensive expression, including symbolic flag- or Koran-burning, is just as protected as liberal political speech-making.
To take the most famous example, the neo-Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie in Illinois in 1977, where many Holocaust survivors lived, had as much right to express their views as anyone else. Controversially, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sprang to the their defence.
In that case the marchers, having secured their free speech rights in court, were persuaded to protest elsewhere. Only last year Pastor Terry Jones also backed down from this threat to burn Korans on the 9/11 anniversary, though most experts agreed that if he had gone ahead with the burning on private property he would have been unlikely to have committed any crime.
But sometimes offensive protestors follow through and make their point as threatened in a way that triggers strong reactions. In the case of Pastor Wayne Sapp, that’s what happened, and with fatal consequences thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, where another group of intolerant people took violent and utterly inexcusable “revenge” on 22 people.
Free speech issues are rarely straightforward. Some people would like to think they are, but they aren’t. The key question is always where a society wants to draw the line, not whether there should be a line at all. But I believe strongly that explosive reactions on the part of the offended shouldn’t determine where that line is drawn.
Such a reaction would give the power to circumscribe the limits of everyone’s freedom to those who have the angriest voices, and are swiftest to resort to violence. Instead we need to protect the freedom to criticise religion and religions, both in words and symbolic actions, as a fundamental right.
Put simply, no idea or object should be sacrosanct from criticism or ridicule, and we should be clear that we condemn violence far more than we condemn the expression of offensive views. We do not want to go back to the Dark Ages of blasphemy laws, or modern equivalents of them.
1 Apr 2011 | Uncategorized
Earlier this week, Facebook was reported to have removed a page calling for a third Palestinian intifada, after Israeli minister Yuli Edelstein — acting, oddly, in a personal capacity, claimed that it contained direct incitement to killing of Israelis and Jews. Facebook also received complaints from the Anti-Defamation League. The social media giant initially resisted calls to take the page down, but the page was eventually removed. Now it’s back.
Anyway, the whole episode led to me being interviewed on the BBC World Service’s World Update. You can listen to it here (about 43 minutes in).
30 Mar 2011 | Uncategorized
Xavier Alvarez told some pretty big lies about his military service during a 2007 municipal water-board meeting in California — that he retired as a US Marine after 25 years, during which time he was awarded the prestigious Medal of Honor. When it turned out Alvarez had never even been a Marine at all (let alone many of the other things he has claimed to be over the years – a Detroit Red Wings hockey player, an Iranian hostage crisis hero), the water board member was convicted under a 2006 federal law making it a crime to lie about receiving military honours.
Last week, an appeals court reaffirmed a lower-court ruling throwing out the conviction on logic that has been praised by free-speech advocates: The First Amendment, the court concluded, protects fibs told about military service, rendering the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional. Other courts have disagreed about the constitutionality of the law, and the final word come could eventually from the Supreme Court.
Several judges dissented, arguing that “the right to lie is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.” But Chief Judge Alex Kozinski countered that criminalizing lies about military service could lead to making even more mundane falsehoods illegal.
“If false factual statements are unprotected,” he wrote, “then the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall tales of winning the congressional Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who falsely claims he’s Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won’t hurt a bit. Phrases such as ‘I’m working late tonight, hunny,’ ‘I got stuck in traffic’ and ‘I didn’t inhale’ could all be made into crimes.”
(JDate, which must surely be making its debut here in sweeping legal scholarship, is a popular online dating site for Jewish American singles.)
11 Mar 2011 | Uncategorized
The Financial Times leader today cuts right to the heart of the debate about privacy sparked by Sir Fred Goodwin seemingly bizarre injunction, which it is alleged prohibits the press from identifying the former RBS chief as a “banker”:
Super-injunctions, which forbid journalists from reporting that they have been granted, as well as preventing disclosure of the information that is their subject, have become increasingly popular. They are a menace to democracy and should be scrapped.
It is clear that there is a balance to be struck between the right of an individual to a private life, and people’s right to be appraised of matters that are of public interest. But of late, driven by a series of rulings based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the pendulum has swung too far in favour of greater privacy.
Sections of the press have done themselves no favours by intrusive reporting of private matters whose disclosure is not in the public interest. That is regrettable. But it does not alter the fact that the public has a right to be able to make informed choices about those whose actions make an impact on their lives. Information is the life-blood of democracy. Too often, super-injunctions are a tool used to thwart this, protecting the rich and powerful by enabling them to gag the press
The piece goes on to suggest the need for a properly drafted privacy law. Of course, the fear could be that a statute privacy law could be even harsher on the press than the current situation is.
