Merged Dutch MP to be charged for "hate speech"

[ddt]

Exceptions only allowed where it conflicts with the rights of others. No, you don't have the right to not be offended.

That's as much a construct as freedom of speech itself is. I note the issue is not that muslims are offended, however, the issue is that Wilders' speech is perceived as inciting hatred (among non-muslims) against muslims.

It would be nice to have a discussion about the limits of freedom of speech - and one that didn't start off in shouting matches. This thread is about Wilders' case, though, and primarily operates within the Dutch context with Dutch laws. And I note that strawmen are erected about the Dutch laws and jurisprudence.

I don't even have to, the Wilders prosecution is enough.

Then I suggest you reread the start of this thread. Yes, it was a facile remark of me to ask you to back up your claims with Dutch legal precedent - which is exclusively in Dutch. But the Appeals Court put out a press release, and I cited and translated in the start of this thread relevant parts of the verdict, as well as a number of Wilders quotes which the court cited in their verdict. Simply put, Wilders says: "Islam is evil, therefore all muslims are evil". The Appeals Court made it clear the first part is fine, the second (bolded) part not, in their opinion. Compare with the forum rule: attack the argument, not the arguer.

Even if he is not convicted he will have spent a small fortune on legal defense as well as a significant amount of time and anguish defending himself from the charges.

I could accept this argument for nearly everyone, not for Wilders. He considers it another soapbox to shout his slogans from. Legal costs are not pretty, but they're not as hefty as in the US. I guess all the way to the Supreme Court would cost 25 to 50,000 euro.

This has a chilling effect on free speech, even if no conviction results. The message is "better just keep your mouth shut than risk prosecution by the thought police". And this is indeed a thought crime.

See above. There's a quite clear line.

Is it in English?

No, but see above.

I really don't see why it would matter anyway, even if all allegations are true it falls far short of anything that would be considered incitement in the US.

I agree that the US is freer in this regard. But let's stop painting it as if all over Europe the thought police comes knocking on your door.

This is nothing short of prosecuting an individual for having an unpopular opinion. Is Wilders a POS scumbag? Yes. But that should never be a reason for criminal prosecutions in any country that values freedom of expression.

IMHO, it goes beyond having an unpopular opinion. See the explanation above and reread the start of the thread.

 

[WildCat]

What has that got to do with the post of mine that you quoted?

It demonstrates that "free speech" means something in the UK that an American wouldn't recognize as such.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, there is far more freedom of speech in the US than there is in the UK or the Netherlands. The definition you guys use are so loose and subjective as to be virtually meaningless. And as we see in the Wilders case used not as a tool against actual incitement, but as a way to suppress unpopular opinions.

There's a very, very good reason why, more than two hundred years ago, we Americans kicked the British out of our country.

 

[Skeptic]

I like the strawman argument: that since the USA does not allow people to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, the USA doesn't "really" have freedom of speech, so it doesn't really matter if Europeans attempt to put people in jail for having unpopular opinions.

Two problems:

First, "freedom of speech" never meant "you can say anything at all you like in all circumstances whatever". It meant "you have the right to express unpopular views without being prosecuted for it". This latter right is what apparently doesn't exist in Europe.

Second, using this "argument", North Korea and Iran can claim that their lack of freedom of speech is no big deal since "no country has it".

 

[WildCat]

That's as much a construct as freedom of speech itself is. I note the issue is not that muslims are offended, however, the issue is that Wilders' speech is perceived as inciting hatred (among non-muslims) against muslims.

As I said, inciting an emotion is a crime in the Netherlands. How are "Muslims" harmed even if Wilders was capable of causing someone to hate "Muslims"? In scare quotes just to emphasize that no actual individual is allegedly harmed by Wilders' asshattery.

It would be nice to have a discussion about the limits of freedom of speech - and one that didn't start off in shouting matches. This thread is about Wilders' case, though, and primarily operates within the Dutch context with Dutch laws. And I note that strawmen are erected about the Dutch laws and jurisprudence.

Sorry, not trying to shout but freedom of speech IMHO is the pillar of a free democracy upon which all else depends. Even speech any reasonable person would identify as a pack of lies/disgusting/offensive/etc.

The best way to fight it is not through criminal laws but with more speech. Let people fight Wilders' words with their own. The Dutch people will see him for what he is and reject him. Have some faith in your fellow citizens.

The bright spotlight unfettered speech provides tends to keep the cockroaches scurrying. Charging them in a court of law puts them up on a stage.

Simply put, Wilders says: "Islam is evil, therefore all muslims are evil". The Appeals Court made it clear the first part is fine, the second (bolded) part not, in their opinion. Compare with the forum rule: attack the argument, not the arguer.

I would never, ever want to live in a country where internet forum rules are the law.

"Muslims", according to the prosecution, are the victims of the crime. Has an actual victim been found yet for this crime?

I could accept this argument for nearly everyone, not for Wilders. He considers it another soapbox to shout his slogans from. Legal costs are not pretty, but they're not as hefty as in the US. I guess all the way to the Supreme Court would cost 25 to 50,000 euro.

I understand your frustration with Wilders, but here you illustrate a basic flaw of using the law to go after him for this. It's an attitude of "oh well, that guys a jerk anyway"... but if they can use it on him they can use it on anybody. And you don't even need an imagination to foresee the range of possibilities in enforcing an incitement law where you don't even need an actual victim.

IMHO, it goes beyond having an unpopular opinion. See the explanation above and reread the start of the thread.

All you're accomplishing is making Wilders more popular than he could have ever hoped to be otherwise. You've turned your local buffoon into an international white nationalist/nazi hero, famous or infamous the world over.

 

[Darat]

I like the strawman argument: that since the USA does not allow people to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, the USA doesn't "really" have freedom of speech, so it doesn't really matter if Europeans attempt to put people in jail for having unpopular opinions.

...snip...

Sweeping generalizations much - "Europeans" refers to over 40 different countries, all with different legal systems and rights so do you want to try and be a tad more accurate?

 

[funk de fino]

Nice change of subject. After all, you brought it up.

Really?

In the meantime, I assume YOU and all the Europeans and ferriners will cease and desist your bashing, rants and raves about laws in the United States, since you obviously have a "lack of understanding of the law"

I very rarely rant and rave about US laws. I am not a US hater. I love the place. Do you have anything to bring or are you just stirring?

 

[funk de fino]

Wasn't there a case in the UK recently where a man wrote a letter to the town council and used a word that rhymed with an offensive word and was arrested and questioned by the police?

Do you really want to claim this has no chilling effect on political speech?

I'll give you a real thought crime instead of the ones you make up because you have no idea what you are talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8504952.stm

Now what do you think of that one?

 

[Arcade22]

Then I suggest you reread the start of this thread. Yes, it was a facile remark of me to ask you to back up your claims with Dutch legal precedent - which is exclusively in Dutch. But the Appeals Court put out a press release, and I cited and translated in the start of this thread relevant parts of the verdict, as well as a number of Wilders quotes which the court cited in their verdict. Simply put, Wilders says: "Islam is evil, therefore all muslims are evil". The Appeals Court made it clear the first part is fine, the second (bolded) part not, in their opinion. Compare with the forum rule: attack the argument, not the arguer.

Perhaps I'm blind, but i can't find these quotes you are talking about, can you link them?

And another thing, is it possible to 'incite hatred' against the Dutch people?

 

[funk de fino]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/695...r-anti-gypsy-email-he-did-not-even-write.html

Yeah, that just has "freedom of speech" written all over it. No chilling effect here people, just move along.

No-one was convicted, not even the real writer of the email. Someone complained, police followed up, police dealt with it, no conviction. No thought crime.

That would be a fail.

 

[funk de fino]

Sweeping generalizations much - "Europeans" refers to over 40 different countries, all with different legal systems and rights so do you want to try and be a tad more accurate?

On recent form, nigh on impossible.

 

[WildCat]

I'll give you a real thought crime instead of the ones you make up because you have no idea what you are talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8504952.stm

Now what do you think of that one?

This part really jumped out at me:

The most serious charge related to the possession of articles that gave rise to "reasonable suspicion" they were connected to terrorism.
His conviction on that allegation resulted in a six-year prison term.

You can convict someone of that there? So to acquit a jury/judge has to have "reasonable doubt" that the police had "reasonable suspicion"?

In a statement, the Crown Office said Siddique remained convicted of serious terrorist offences.

The offences relate to the setting up of websites which provided links to documents on how to operate explosives and weapons, and to circulating terror publications via the web.

He is also still guilty of a breach of the peace for showing images of suicide bombers, murders and beheadings to fellow students.

All these things should be protected speech. I don't think any of that gets you arrested here.

 

[WildCat]

No-one was convicted, not even the real writer of the email. Someone complained, police followed up, police dealt with it, no conviction. No thought crime.

That would be a fail.

Sure, because no harm is done by arresting you in front of your family, taking you to jail, and questioning you for several hours because you petitioned the local government with a concern. And oh yeah, your fingerprints and DNA are being kept forever.

How do you like the zoning ordinance now Mr. Jones?

 

[WildCat]

On recent form, nigh on impossible.

"American" refers to 50 different states and several territories... and you do have that EU thing now.

 

[funk de fino]

This part really jumped out at me:

You can convict someone of that there? So to acquit a jury/judge has to have "reasonable doubt" that the police had "reasonable suspicion"?

This is part of the anti terrorism laws. You have files, movies, bomb making documents, visit websites, post blogs etc etc and they can accuse you of being a terrorist. Thats real thought crime stuff.

However, if they do not act and summit happens?

All these things should be protected speech. I don't think any of that gets you arrested here.

Breach of peace is not anything to do with freedom of speech. Its about causing a nuisance or alarm to others. Like that "dont taze me bro" sort of stuff. Personally I would not report anyone who tried to show me videos of that sort or claimed he was going to be a suicide bomber. I would lamp him. Watching people being beheaded is not a nice thing to see, even for me who has seen many dead bodies.

 

[funk de fino]

Sure, because no harm is done by arresting you in front of your family, taking you to jail, and questioning you for several hours because you petitioned the local government with a concern. And oh yeah, your fingerprints and DNA are being kept forever.

No-one convicted. No crime was commited. Or are you saying police should ignore potential reports of crime from people?

How do you like the zoning ordinance now Mr. Jones?

The whole point was it was misunderstanding and thankfully it ended being sorted.

PS - The DNA thing is being looked at by the EU.

 

[funk de fino]

"American" refers to 50 different states and several territories... and you do have that EU thing now.

No-one said anything to the contrary. Do all the states speak different languages and have different constitutions? Different nationalities?

Best tell Bob that eh?

There's a very, very good reason why, more than two hundred years ago, we Americans kicked the British out of our country.

You will also note my liberal use of the term USA in previous posts.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

In the United States you can say whatever you like, hateful or not.

Incitement in the US is an actual call to harm a specific person, what Wilders said doesn't even come close to this standard.

Yes, there is far more freedom of speech in the US than there is in the UK or the Netherlands. The definition you guys use are so loose and subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

"have you ever been a member of, or in any other way affiliated with, the communist party..."

 

[rwguinn]

"have you ever been a member of, or in any other way affiliated with, the communist party..."

You could thatch the roofs of a whole country with the straw thrown here.
McCarthy was discredited and ruined, by the very system you disdain-over 50 years ago.

 

[ddt]

You could thatch the roofs of a whole country with the straw thrown here.
McCarthy was discredited and ruined, by the very system you disdain-over 50 years ago.

I can remember though having to answer that question on a visa form. And I'm not yet 50 years old.