Oriana Fallaci has died

[Chaos]

She was not on trial for blasphemy, technically speaking. She was on trial for a modern version of this thought crime--for "offending Islam", due to statements made in her book "The Rage and the Pride". The reason was not that there's a law making offending Islam in particular illegal, but an (equally outrageous) law making offending all religions criminal in Italy.

The person who brought the suit against her, Adel Smith, an Italian convert to Islam, was himself sentenced to six months in jail for calling the Catholic Church "a criminal orgnaization" and Pope John Paul II "a deciever" in a TV broadcast. I guess he brought a suit against Fallaci under the "two can play that game" principle.

Apparently, it is illegal today to have unpopular opinions in Europe. In 2002, a Swiss judge requested that Fallaci be extradited to Switzerland to stand trial for "public incitement of racial hatered or discrimination", which she apparently broke by publishing "The Rage and the Pride". That Fallaci was not a Swiss citizen, or that she has the right for freedom of speech, apparently meant nothing to the judge. To their credit, the Italian minister of justice noted that the Italian constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and therefore she will not be extradited. With her trial in Italy, one wonders if that's still true.

Frankly, if one must choose between the crime of "blasphemy" and the crime of "Insulting religion", I would prefer blasphemy to be illegal. At least blasphemy is made illegal due to the belief that the religions one disrespects is the true religion and that the purpose of the law is to prevent people from falling into error and thus going to hell: there was a serious purpose behind it, no matter how wrong the world view it's based on might be.

The "insulting religion" crime, on the other hand, is not based on any religious belief--the EU beaurocrats and politicians who pass such laws are, for the most part, atheists or vaguely agnostic. It is based on the two conflicting ideas that (a) all religions are equally nonsenseical metaphysics, but also that (b) somehow, pointing out religious nonsense is taboo simply because it might insult the people who believe in it.

But if it is not the validity of the criticism, but merely that it is insulting, which makes it illegal, why not make insulting people's favorite soccer team or brand of beer illegal as well? Many people take their sports teams and beer far more seriously than they take their religion in Europe nowadays.

I would just LOVE to know where you got your impression that "the EU beaurocrats and politicians who pass such laws are, for the most part, atheists or vaguely agnostic". Evidence!

Besides, for the most part, we´re not talking about making opinions illegal. We´re talking about making libelous claims illegal.

It´s really ironic that you keep raving about European countries which make it illegal to, for example, libel the jews (for example, by alleging that they are party to the "Holohoax"), while living in a country where spreading libelous claims about, for example, the jews is perfectly legal. A country, where none other the Nazis are openly and legally active.

 

[Ziggurat]

It´s really ironic that you keep raving about European countries which make it illegal to, for example, libel the jews (for example, by alleging that they are party to the "Holohoax"), while living in a country where spreading libelous claims about, for example, the jews is perfectly legal. A country, where none other the Nazis are openly and legally active.

How clueless are you? That's not irony: that's exactly what you should EXPECT: someone who lives in a country where free speech, even hateful speech, is protected, and who agrees with that protection, is EXACTLY the kind of person whom you should expect to attack countries which try to outlaw such speech. Regardless of whether or not that's the right position, that's the expected position, which means that, quite obviously, no irony is involved whatsoever. Duh.

Yes, the Nazi party is legal here. It's also widely ridiculed (ever seen the Blues Brothers?), and has no real influence. Perhaps Germany has too much leftover sympathy for the Nazi party to be able to legallize it over there (which, if that's the case, should be your real primary concern), but over here in the US, we do quite well operating under the principle that the best solution to bad speech is more speech, not less.

 

[Chaos]

How clueless are you? That's not irony: that's exactly what you should EXPECT: someone who lives in a country where free speech, even hateful speech, is protected, and who agrees with that protection, is EXACTLY the kind of person whom you should expect to attack countries which try to outlaw such speech. Regardless of whether or not that's the right position, that's the expected position, which means that, quite obviously, no irony is involved whatsoever. Duh.

Oh sure, there is irony - the irony that "Skeptic" is in no way troubled by the people who are paving the way for a repeat of the events in which numerous members of his family where killed. And the irony that he keeps bashing the people who do their best to prevent said repeat from happening.

Yes, the Nazi party is legal here. It's also widely ridiculed (ever seen the Blues Brothers?), and has no real influence. Perhaps Germany has too much leftover sympathy for the Nazi party to be able to legallize it over there (which, if that's the case, should be your real primary concern), but over here in the US, we do quite well operating under the principle that the best solution to bad speech is more speech, not less.

It appears that the US is really rather operating under the principle that the best way to protect oneself from ones enemies is to completely ignore them until it is too late.

You know, there was once a time, back in the 20´s, when people over here thought the best way to make the Nazis go away was to just let them rant. My advice for you is to open a history book and see how well this worked out, starting in 1933.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh sure, there is irony - the irony that "Skeptic" is in no way troubled by the people who are paving the way for a repeat of the events in which numerous members of his family where killed.

But that's not what you said: you didn't say it was ironic because Skeptic was a jew, you said it was ironic because he lived in a country that does permit the sort of free speech that he complained is not permitted in Europe. And there's no irony whatsoever in that. But go ahead, change your claim and pretend that's what you said in the first place.

It appears that the US is really rather operating under the principle that the best way to protect oneself from ones enemies is to completely ignore them until it is too late.

"Fascism is forever descending upon America, but it always lands in Europe." That YOUR country has a societal disease which you do not believe you can combat through the exercise of free speech does not mean my country does.

 

[Chaos]

But that's not what you said: you didn't say it was ironic because Skeptic was a jew, you said it was ironic because he lived in a country that does permit the sort of free speech that he complained is not permitted in Europe. And there's no irony whatsoever in that. But go ahead, change your claim and pretend that's what you said in the first place.

It´s actually quite simple: both ironies are there. Plus the third irony of a person who sees anti-semitism in every dissenting opinion - or at least claims to do so in a very loud and vitriolic way -, but goes to great lengths in order to ignore the *real* anti-semitism, which apparently he considers free speech.

"Fascism is forever descending upon America, but it always lands in Europe." That YOUR country has a societal disease which you do not believe you can combat through the exercise of free speech does not mean my country does.

"Societal disease"? What a piece of crap. Fascism happened here once, because we ignored it when it approached. Now we no longer ignore it, and get demonized by those who ignore it when it festers in their own country.

 

[Skeptic]

Besides, for the most part, we´re not talking about making opinions illegal.

Correct. You can still hold an unpopular opinion about any religion you wish. You just can't express that opinion...

We´re talking about making libelous claims illegal.

Really? You mean libel has been legal until now? Sorry, this doesn't fly. Libel is already illegal. "Insulting religion" is a separate issue.

It´s really ironic that you keep raving about European countries which make it illegal to, for example, libel the jews (for example, by alleging that they are party to the "Holohoax"), while living in a country where spreading libelous claims about, for example, the jews is perfectly legal.

First, you seem to have no idea of the difference between libel and false and insulting opinions. To say "The Jews invented the holohoax!" is expressing an insulting and false opinion. To say "Joe Cohen falsified stories about his survival in a concentration camp!" is--if Joe Cohen did not falsify such stories--libel. The former should not be illegal; the latter already is. Generally speaking, you cannot legally libel "the Jews" or "Islam" or "Atheists" in general. You usually have to say something that is knowingly false about a particular living individual.

Second, that it is legal in the USA for disgusting people to hold and express disgusting opinions is--contrary to what you seem to think--not something that should be made illegal, but the whole point of having freedom of speech. It means the USA is more, not less, free than the European Union.

Why? If, in the USA, you want to say something that's critical of Islam or Christianity or of any other religion, you know that you will not be harassed or prosecuted for saying it precisely because free speech is a right that even the Nazis enjoy, so unless you want to say something even the Nazis usually don't say (e.g., "let's kill all the Jews in the neighborhood right now!") you can just go ahead and say it without fear. You know the government cannot, and will not, shut you up.

In Europe, however, where what you may legally say is determined by what you should say according to the government, one never knows whether what one says is really crossing the line or not. This is the real effect of the Fallaci trial: everybody who watches the trial and wants to say something critical of Islam (or any other religion) in Europe thinks to himself: "should I say it? Is it worth the risk of getting put on trial, perhaps going to jail? I better shut up." In other words, these laws make people self-censor themselves out of fear of what the government might do to them if they say something. You call that freedom?

 

[Ziggurat]

It´s actually quite simple: both ironies are there.

It is indeed simple: the first situation you posted (someone in a country with free speech criticising the lack of such speech elsewhere) isn't irony at all. Jeeze, I really didn't think I'd have to do this, but apparently you've decided to not only use a word you don't know the definition of, but to continue to do so even when it's pointed out to you. So here, just for you, is the definition of irony:

1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

"Societal disease"? What a piece of crap. Fascism happened here once, because we ignored it when it approached. Now we no longer ignore it, and get demonized by those who ignore it when it festers in their own country.

And here you make the mistake of confusing not outlawing speech with ignoring speech. We don't ignore our Nazis, we make fun of them. Ever seen "Blues Brothers"? And quite frankly, it works here. Nazis may be legal here and illegal in Germany, but it was your country that had to worry about neo-nazis disrupting the world cup, not mine. You can use that fact to try to support the idea that Germany should keep the Nazi party illegal, but pretending that we're facing an onslaught of fascism here in the US because we don't outlaw them is really just projection on your part. America is not Germany. If the day ever comes where we do become fascist, it'll be our own damned home-grown ideologies, not some borrowed and already failed crap which Germany STILL can't get rid of, even with outlawing it.

 

[Skeptic]

Oh sure, there is irony - the irony that "Skeptic" is in no way troubled by the people who are paving the way for a repeat of the events in which numerous members of his family where killed. And the irony that he keeps bashing the people who do their best to prevent said repeat from happening.

I'm certainly troubled by it. But the best way to fight them is, as Ziggurat said, to have more--not less--free speech.

To cancel the first Amendment to make Nazi expression of opinion illegal today, means that tomorrow the government might decide to make Jews speaking out against Nazis illegal, too. It was already decided, to paraphrase G. B. Shaw, that the government can make speech illegal; we're now only arguing about the details about which speech it will be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Second, that it is legal in the USA for disgusting people to hold and express disgusting opinions is--contrary to what you seem to think--not something that should be made illegal, but the whole point of having freedom of speech.

And to quote Hank Hill, "I think body piercings are a good thing. That way, you can tell if something's not right with a person." When the hatemongers are allowed to say what they really believe, they expose themselves. When they are not, they become harder to spot. Prohibiting bad speech does not (and cannot) cure the disease, it only masks the symptoms. If Germany really is better off outlawing Nazi speech, that's a sign of societal failure: it means that exposing hatemongers for what they are isn't enough, that society will accept them and their ideas anyways. And if that's the case, THAT is what Crossbow should be worried about, not the fact that a few idiots in Illinois can legally dress up like losers to widespread ridicule and universal disdain.

 

[steverino]

I nominated the last three paragraphs of that post.

DR

Can we nominate ourselves?

 

[Skeptic]

And to quote Hank Hill, "I think body piercings are a good thing. That way, you can tell if something's not right with a person." When the hatemongers are allowed to say what they really believe, they expose themselves.

It think BPSCG in this forum used to have in his .sig line, "Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots".

 

[Chaos]

Correct. You can still hold an unpopular opinion about any religion you wish. You just can't express that opinion...



Really? You mean libel has been legal until now? Sorry, this doesn't fly. Libel is already illegal. "Insulting religion" is a separate issue.



First, you seem to have no idea of the difference between libel and false and insulting opinions. To say "The Jews invented the holohoax!" is expressing an insulting and false opinion. To say "Joe Cohen falsified stories about his survival in a concentration camp!" is--if Joe Cohen did not falsify such stories--libel. The former should not be illegal; the latter already is. Generally speaking, you cannot legally libel "the Jews" or "Islam" or "Atheists" in general. You usually have to say something that is knowingly false about a particular living individual.

Second, that it is legal in the USA for disgusting people to hold and express disgusting opinions is--contrary to what you seem to think--not something that should be made illegal, but the whole point of having freedom of speech. It means the USA is more, not less, free than the European Union.

Why? If, in the USA, you want to say something that's critical of Islam or Christianity or of any other religion, you know that you will not be harassed or prosecuted for saying it precisely because free speech is a right that even the Nazis enjoy, so unless you want to say something even the Nazis usually don't say (e.g., "let's kill all the Jews in the neighborhood right now!") you can just go ahead and say it without fear. You know the government cannot, and will not, shut you up.

In Europe, however, where what you may legally say is determined by what you should say according to the government, one never knows whether what one says is really crossing the line or not. This is the real effect of the Fallaci trial: everybody who watches the trial and wants to say something critical of Islam (or any other religion) in Europe thinks to himself: "should I say it? Is it worth the risk of getting put on trial, perhaps going to jail? I better shut up." In other words, these laws make people self-censor themselves out of fear of what the government might do to them if they say something. You call that freedom?

Let me expand on that libel thing a bit.

When you think it through, you´ll notice that Holocaust Denial is impossible without accusing *somebody* of a crime. At the very least, you would have to claim that some people, like the survivors of Auschwitz et al, for example, accuse the Germans of crimes that they (the accusers) know the Germans did not commit. That kind of thing is, at least in the German penal code, illegal. Depending on the variant of Holocaust Denial we´re talking about, there would also be accusations against the Allies, like obstruction of justice (for "faking" evidence of the Holocaust).

It has been more than 60 years now since the end of the Holocaust, and every single tinyest shred of "evidence" the Deniers have brought forth has been debunked dozens of times, and every claim they make has been disproved in any way imaginable (including, for many of them, in various courts of law, such as Irving vs. Lipstadt). It is therefore impossible for any sane person to review all the previous research honestly and with an open mind and still come out of this holding Holocaust Denier views. It just isn´t possible. Therefore anybody who denies the Holocaust based on already existing ways of Denier thought must willingly and knowingly have decided to disregard reality and to instead tell lies that, as shown in the previous paragraph, are illegal - would be illegal even if they didn´t concern the Holocaust.

 

[Ziggurat]

Therefore anybody who denies the Holocaust based on already existing ways of Denier thought must willingly and knowingly have decided to disregard reality and to instead tell lies that, as shown in the previous paragraph, are illegal - would be illegal even if they didn´t concern the Holocaust.

If your logic was correct, then there were would be no need for holocaust denial to be made specifically illegal, since general libel laws would cover the situation adequately. But that's not the case: there are laws specifically for holocaust denial. Why?

 

[Chaos]

If your logic was correct, then there were would be no need for holocaust denial to be made specifically illegal, since general libel laws would cover the situation adequately. But that's not the case: there are laws specifically for holocaust denial. Why?

My guess is that, when the penal code was drafted, the Allies insisted in that. And it was never abolished because, well, you can guess what kind of media echo a politician will generate when he "tries to make Holocaust Denial legal", as the press will put it.

 

[Mycroft]

It´s actually quite simple: both ironies are there. Plus the third irony of a person who sees anti-semitism in every dissenting opinion - or at least claims to do so in a very loud and vitriolic way -, but goes to great lengths in order to ignore the *real* anti-semitism, which apparently he considers free speech.

1) Skeptic does not claim anti-Semitism in every dissenting opinion.

2) Skeptic certainly does not ignore the "real" anti-Semitism of neo-Nazism or holocaust denial.

3) There is nothing at all ironic in someone supporting freedom of speech for people they disagree with. If you don't support freedom of speech for the people you disagree with, then you don't support freedom of speech period.

"Societal disease"? What a piece of crap. Fascism happened here once, because we ignored it when it approached. Now we no longer ignore it, and get demonized by those who ignore it when it festers in their own country.

Not because you guys ignored it, but because you were ripe for it. Your great national pride had been trampled, your economy was in ruins and it was so easy to listen to the guy who kept telling you it wasn't your fault but someone else's. Democracy? That was something that had been forced on your people. You had always done well in the past under a strong monarch, a fascist dictator wasn't so different. It was a very german thing to go along with.

 

[Skeptic]

Let me expand on that libel thing a bit.

When you think it through, you´ll notice that Holocaust Denial is impossible without accusing *somebody* of a crime.

Correct. Of course, if you say "there is corruption in the government", that, too, could not be true unless you are accusing *somebody* in the government of a crime. Therefore, saying awful things like that about the dear leaders of the country should be illegal, as it is libelious.

 

[Chaos]

Correct. Of course, if you say "there is corruption in the government", that, too, could not be true unless you are accusing *somebody* in the government of a crime. Therefore, saying awful things like that about the dear leaders of the country should be illegal, as it is libelious.

Not quite. It is libelous, and thus illegal, if you absolutely *know* that it is wrong. Or, on the other hand, if you delude yourself into "knowing" it is right by aggressively disregarding whole mountains of facts, as Holocaust Deniers are doing.
So, accusing the jews of having faked the Holocaust is libel, while for example accusing Hitler of having set the Holocaust in motion is not.

I´m not sure about what libel laws say about cases where the evidence is not clear - to use a recent example, accusing Putin of having ordered the murder of Litvinenko.

 

[Skeptic]

Not quite. It is libelous, and thus illegal, if you absolutely *know* that it is wrong.

So it's not libel to say "John Smith is a thief" unless you absolutely know he isn't one? Well, you weren't with him every waking hour, so maybe he did swipe something when you weren't looking.

If that's the criterion, nothing is libel.

 

[Ziggurat]

My guess is that, when the penal code was drafted, the Allies insisted in that.

That doesn't explain the existence of such laws in France - they chose that on their own, it wasn't forced down their throats by England and the US. Furthermore, two other aspects distinguish it from ordinary libel laws: the fact that the offender can be sentence to prison (not just fined), and that only the offense itself must be shown. In libel cases, it is actually not enough that libel has been committed: you need to demonstrate actual harm from the libel. Holocaust denial laws are indeed quite different from libel laws.

 

[Pyrrho]

Fallaci's A Man is a classic exposition of the nature of political power in the 20th century.