Free Speech is under attack
Posted on July 17th, 2008 by Richard Catto 2,320 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 Irony of South African politics where killers walk free and talkers get fried
Posted on June 25th, 2008 by Richard Catto 1,351 views
Julius Malema and Zwelinzima Vavi are being taken very seriously by many South Africans and the South African Human Rights Commission for using evocative language recently.
"Oh no!", they are being told, "you can’t tell us you’re willing to shoot and kill for Zuma! That’s very naughty and we demand that you retract your utterances within 14 days or we shall become very angry."
Please. Give me a fucking break.
Who gives a shit?
South Africa is the same country that gave amnesty to the APLA gang who shot up the St. James Church in the massacre of July 1993 and followed that up with a shooting spree at The Heidelberg pub in Observatory, Cape Town.
We let actual killers and murderers walk free. They didn’t make any speeches about killing – they just went and actually did it.
And we let them walk.
Now, we are supposed to work up some angst over a couple of politicians who chose to express their sentiments of loyalty (for another politician) in fighting language?
Sorry, but I can’t take you seriously.
First go and lock up the real killers. The guys who killed the people at St. James, The Heidelberg, and the killers of Amy Biehl and then we’ll talk.
Until then, you are a clanging hollow drum that is becoming increasingly stupid and annoying.
Tags: Amy Biehl, Jacob Zuma, Julius Malema, St. James massacre, Zwelinzima Vavi
Filed under South African politics | 1 Comment »
