Free Speech is under attack
Posted on July 17th, 2008 by Richard Catto 2,321 views
Free Speech is no longer considered an absolute right in many countries, including South Africa.
In fact, the only country which strongly protects Free Speech is the United States of America through its First Amendment.
Recently both Zwelinzima Vavi and Julius Malema have come under attack in South Africa and were accused of hate speech. I, personally, have also come under attack for remarks that I have (allegedly) made that have offended (some) Afrikaners.
To understand what is at stake here, I would encourage you to read this New York Times article published on June 12 2008.
Here are a number of quotes from the NYT article:
“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.
“It’s free speech!” yelled another.
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions – even false, provocative or hateful things – without legal consequence.
And another quote regarding the use of racially offensive epithets:
In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at ones legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called The Exceptional First Amendment.
But in the United States, Professor Schauer continued, all such speech remains constitutionally protected.
Some further quotes in defence of Free Speech:
Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., said “Free speech matters because it works. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship.”
“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death. Justice Holmes wrote in 1919.
An example of what is considered protected Free Speech:
But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.
When you ban Hate Speech, this is the result:
“Innocent intent is not a defense,” defence attorney, Roger D. McConchie said in a bitter criticism of the British Columbia law on hate speech. “Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.”
Finally, here is the opinion of Mark Steyn, author of “The Future Belongs to Islam” which fell foul of Canadian laws against hate speech:
“Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.
So the question for South Africans is which model of Free Speech do you wish to adopt? Do you want to feel the eyes of Big Brother upon your back as you write a blog post or a comment on a blog or a letter to a newspaper or to a magazine?
Do you wish to allow people who hate you to be able to make use of legal loopholes to string you up because you expressed something that you truly believe but which the government has decided you may not?
I vote that South Africa adopts the US model of Free Speech and amends our Constitution appropriately. The cost to outlaw “hate speech” is too high a price to pay for our individual freedoms.
Do not let them take away your Freedom!
Tags: First Amendment, Free Speech, Hate Speech, HRC, Julius Malema, Zwelinzima Vavi
Filed under Politics, South African politics, US Politics | 6 Comments »
The Nobama idiots
Posted on July 4th, 2008 by Richard Catto 1,850 views
I laughed long and hard last night when I came across a blog displaying this logo:
I clicked the link and got magically transported to (cue ominous music) The Obama File (latest obamanations).
What made me laugh long and hard was reading one of their so-called Obamanations:
Given the option of either supporting McCain or withholding support in light of the presumed nomination of Barack Obama for the Democratic party, 100 Christian leaders have met and decided to make their stand with McCain.
In making the announcement, Mat Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal advocacy group, said. "Collectively we feel that he (McCain) will support and advance those moral values that we hold much greater than Obama, who in our view will decimate moral values."
Hahahahahaha!!! Obama is going to DECIMATE moral values, is he? He’s going to kill every tenth one, or one in every ten, is he?
Really? Wow! Secretly, I am hoping it’s the 6th one (do not commit adultery).
Racists are such annoying idiots, aren’t they?
Tags: Barack Obama, Democrat
Filed under US Politics | 16 Comments »
Should Hillary Clinton pack it in?
Posted on May 8th, 2008 by Richard Catto 1,640 views
It seems like it is all over for Hillary Clinton‘s bid to become the Democratic presidential nominee, yet she refuses to bow out and concede the nomination to Barack Obama whose lead over Clinton appears unassailable.
Like many other (amateur) observers of the US presidential elections, it seemed a foregone conclusion (not so long ago) to me that Hillary Clinton would be the next US president, but that no longer seems to be the case.
Can anything save her campaign at this eleventh hour?
Financially, she is completed outgunned by Obama who recently spent almost double what Clinton spent on campaign advertising ($7 million vs $4 million). At the beginning of April, Obama had $42 million, whereas Clinton had $9.3 million cash on hand and $10 million in debt. To keep her campaign afloat, Clinton has had to dip into her personal savings and has made several "loans" to her campaign totalling to almost $13 million.
Yesterday, one of her prominent supporters, 85 year old George McGovern who was himself the Democratic nominee in 1972 (he lost the presidential election to Richard Nixon by a landslide), switched his support to Obama and urged her to quit.
It seems like we have come to the end of the grueling 15 month slugfest between Obama and Clinton.
Speaking from West Virginia, where the next primary election will be held next Tuesday, Clinton remains adament that she intends continuing on until there is a nominee.
How much longer can she last?
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton
Filed under Politics, US Politics | 2 Comments »
