Brigitte Bardot: Racist Hatemonger

Sixties sex icon, Brigitte Bardot, has been dragged into French court for the fifth time for "inciting racial hatred."

A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed suit last year over a letter that Bardot sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, and which was published in her foundation's quarterly journal.

In the letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot accused France's Muslim population of destroying France, and complained about the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha.

French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious or racial grounds. Bardot has been convicted four times for inciting racial hatred.

That sounds about right. In order to live peaceably in a multicultural world, there must be de facto and de jure sanctions against those that may create animosity between the various competing ethnic groups.

So the more diverse a population becomes, the more stunted, boring, and less diverse the thought becomes. But hey, at least there will be plenty of ethnic food.

Bardot is right, or course. But the French courts will ensure she pays for it.

So, keeping a site ethnically and culturally homogenous contributes to diversity of thought and ideas?

Certainly. If you have fewer people to offend, then the more free you are to produce work that pushes the envelope. But if you have to worry about someone from group X, Y, or Z attacking you (whether that be verbally or physically) because of the content of your work, then the less inclined you will be to produce such work.

I can see your point, but it seems like there would be fewer envelopes to push in such a place, and they would get pushed in fewer directions.

I don't know about in fewer directions, but in a society in which there are few to offend, there may in fact be fewer envelopes to push. What some may consider purely acceptable speech may in fact be considered down right offensive to others.

What sort of speech do you consider completely OK and valuable that others might find offensive? (For me, it's phrases like "God doesn't exist, and if you think so you are deluded.")

Are the sort of things that you think are being supressed pushing the envelope in a blatantly racist or ethnocentric direction?

I'm trying to imagine all the works of genuine scientific, literary or artistic merit that aren't being created in America because of respect for diversity. So far, I've come up with artitstic and scientific achievements that go against the creation myth or values of whatever religion.

Stuff that is blatantly racist, ethnocentric, or self-serving, I don't consider to be of much genuine value. I consider that regressive rather than progressive. There is plenty of stuff produced here that does offend people of other cultures, and I can't think of anything that pushes the envelope even more that would be both offensive and valuable.

We might be missing out on such things as "such as "Why All N*ggers are F*ggots" by Rush Limbaugh, or "Why White Americans have been Scientifically Proven to be the Best People Ever" by Christian H. Scientist. That sort of thing does exist, but not really in the mainstream. What sort of things do you think we are missing out on due to fear of offending certain groups?

Why all Women Secretively Want to be Barefoot, Pregnant and in the Kitchen

That might be an interesting tome.

Maggie, it's been written. Feminist Fantasies by Phillis Schafly.

Although I don't know who would be willing to kick all women out of society so they can create great but offensive things without fear of alienating them.

I consider research into the cognitive and biological differences between males, females, and races to be a perfectly legitimate area of study. However, it I can see how others may find this line of inquiry racist, sexist, and dangerous. But that's their problem--I don't expect scientists in Europe to stop their research into the biological basis for religion because a Muslim or Christian has a problem with it. Nor should some scientists stop their research into sex differences because the result of such work may confirm what others believed all along--men and women are different.

I'm fairly atypical, I suppose. The taboo doesn't have much effect on me, a personal flaw I'm working on. So what I consider to be perfectly OK and valuable will certainly be offensive to some.

I'm trying to imagine all the works of genuine scientific, literary or artistic merit that aren't being created in America because of respect for diversity

That is ridiculous. How could you possibly imagine these works if people who would create them were otherwise compelled not to?

In late 2006, the German Opera canceled several performances of Mozart's opera Idomeneo out of concern for the performers and staff because in one scene the severed head of Mohammed was depicted alongside Jesus', Neptune's, and Buddha's (that Mozart sure knew how to raise eyebrows).

This is a classic economic problem. If you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. The opera eventually went on but under tight security. But what effect did that episode have on artistic creativity within Germany itself? Not many artists can afford to go into hiding after something they create, so they have an incentive to keep their pens down, brushes up, and lips sealed.

I thought it rather funny that you omitted the letters "i" and "a" from nigger and faggot, as if omitting those letters somehow makes those words any less offensive. It was as though on the one hand you were trying to be edgy and provacative while on the other politically correct and sensitive.

So ... as I understand the implicit argument above: it is okay to censor offensive speech and punish the offensive-speakers if it doesn't restrain genuine creativity?

I hope that wasn't directed at me because that's not my argument at all.

"In order to live peaceably in a multicultural world, there must be de facto and de jure sanctions against those that may create animosity between the various competing ethnic groups." -codyed

Pluralism provides its challenges, as do all other forms of social organization (and that includes objectivism and libertarianism).

People who are critical of the stringent nature of the law should work with the French equivalent of the ACLU to force the French legal system to explicitly define the nature of the law.

I'm not for censoring anything. I don't believe that being shielded from things that offend you is a person's right. People should create/research whatever they wish and deal with offended parties later.

I disagree with the idea that American thought is being "stunted" by our failure to exclude certain people from society or force them to assimilate to a certain point of view. Sure, respect for diversity may keep works that some find offensive out of the mainstream. But if our society were a bunch of straight white Christian dudes that could create whatever they wanted or come to certain conclusions without anybody to question them, do you think this would result in genuine progress, or would they just sit around and agree with each other? Wouldn't the temptation exist to create a bunch of self-serving work of minimal value?

In the case of the German opera, what do you think the solution should be? Remove Muslims from society, or at least render them powerless? What about in the US whenever Christians get all pissed off about some piece of artwork that splatters dung on the virgin Mary, or when people get up in arms about art that desecrates the American flag? What do you think should be done about that?

>13 weener: That is the generally accepted American perspective, one which I, in most circumstances, also embrace. That said, who am I (or you) to dictate how Western Europe should treat free speech?

Europe has embraced a different understanding of free speech. Those who are critical should encourage, as I have above, legal challenges which will, by their very nature, explicitly define the limits of pluralistic censorship.

Exactly right, BGP. Those of us who have always taken "free speech" for granted may be shocked to learn that other countries have different values. For example, France's and Germany's anti-hate speech laws came about largely in response to the impact that Nazism had on that region.

Europeans have a much less individualist approach to free speech -- blasphemy is still a crime on the books in the UK, I think, although of course it is not enforced against those who blaspheme Christianity, because the intelligentsia despise the latter; and those who blaspheme against Islam have other things to worry about than state prosecution.

The idiotic concept of "Holocaust denial" is a crime in Europe too. As Citygirl says, a lot of this stuff came aobut in the wake of WWII, when the elite decided not to trust the common people not to reinstitute fascism at some point.

Note that the Canadians have also embraced the concept of Thoughtcrime, via their "Human Rights Commissions", which operate to persecute anyone who upsets the feelings of favored minorities.

Weener asks a good question: having admitted millions of Muslims to your country, a large number of whom do not hold to liberal Western values and some of whom are happy to murder those who offend their stupid ideas, what should we do? Immigrate, I guess.

Hey, I just think that there are certain moral questions involved in disenfranchising broad groups of people.

Blasphemy is no longer a crime in the U.K. Holocaust denial still is in some
countries. Canada doesn't have a concept of thought crime and claiming
that it does, is just childish propaganda.

In the U.K. we make a distinction between expressing an opinion and inciting
violence and hatred. An adult person ought to be able to cope with this
elementary distinction.

Many people in a country may have anti-liberal anti-democratic ideas,
including Muslims, Fundamentalist Christians, Fascist political parties etc.
In a democracy we have to learn to cope with all of these and to try and
frame sensible laws. Of course in any democratic society there will always
be those who protest that free speech should allow them the right to
incite the murder of those wo disagree with them. These people will always
try to use some imaginary right to free speech to support their position.
They will always categorise any law that restricts their freedom to preach
hatred and violence as being the product of pinko minority loving perverts.

Every anti-democratic extremist who ever existed is always willing to invoke
the cry of free speech to allow him the freedom he wishes to deny other
people.

Nicely stated, shaunw. Thank you.

Mark Steyn, conservative commentator, is currently being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Commission for in an article he wrote for Maclean's magazine concerning Islam (the Ontario Human Rights Commission dropped their case against Steyn because they felt they didn't have jurisdiction. However, they felt he was guilty anyway)

Ezra Levant, publisher of the Western Standard, was dragged into one of these kangaroo courts because he had the temerity to publish the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

Today, two Canadian bloggers (here and here) are being prosecuted in these "human rights" courts for comments they made concerning...well, I'll leave that up to you.

Jean Phillipe Rushton, a Canadian psychometrician, was even investigated by the CMP and the CHRC for his research into the racial differences in intelligence.

These aren't simple formalities. Those that are brought up on charges have to pay for the priviledge of being silenced by the government.

One more thing: If the holocaust and WWII were the impetus for restrictions on free speech in Europe, what's Canada's excuse?

In general, I think it's worth wondering why strong American attitudes toward freedom of the press and to a lesser extent of religion haven't been as popular in the rest of the world as the rest of the American "package."

Unoriginally, I think it comes down to the essentially individual nature of American freedom, which brooks little in the way of communal rights something which has been implicated in European-style democratic liberalism from the outset.

That and, in British libel law, different attitudes toward injuries to reputation. Relatively class-less America didn't give that as much weight. And anyway touchy Southern gentlemen had dueling! :)

And in the urban U.S. we have "drive by" shootings. Aren't they a perversion of dueling?

Could the Canadians please justify their Human Rights Commission's persecution of Mark Steyn and others?

Enemies of free speech always try to blur the distinction between saying, for example, "President Bush should be assassinated, right now ... go and do it!" on the one hand, and "President Bush is a very wicked man who has caused the deaths of thousands and who, in a just world, would receive an eye-for-an-eye retribution". And indeed the distinction is not so clear-cut. Enemies of free speech thrive on that fact.

Doug1943: "The idiotic concept of "Holocaust denial" is a crime in Europe too. As Citygirl says, a lot of this stuff came aobut in the wake of WWII, when the elite decided not to trust the common people not to reinstitute fascism at some point."

The "Elite" in some cases consisting of the Occupation forces. Certain regulations in the German Constitution and Laws were directly influenced by the Allied Occupational Administration. "Nach zum Teil heftigen Debatten über die Lehren, die aus dem Scheitern der Weimarer Republik, dem Dritten Reich und dem Zweiten Weltkrieg zu ziehen seien, wurde das Grundgesetz am 8. Mai 1949 vom Parlamentarischen Rat mehrheitlich, gegen die Stimmen u. a. der CSU und KPD, angenommen. Am 12. Mai 1949 wurde es von den Militärgouverneuren der britischen, französischen und amerikanischen Besatzungszone genehmigt, allerdings mit einigen Vorbehalten." (Wikipedia)
I.e., the draft of the German constitution had to be run by the Allied Governors for approval. Art. 5 of the Grundgesetz grants everyone free speech and freedom of information. Repeated decisions by German courts have made it clear that §130 STGB (penal code; dealing with hate crimes) is covered by the Grundgesetz. It protects the human dignity of victims of hate crimes, also of victims of the holocaust. Art. 5 protects free speech, but finds its boundary in Art. 1 (protection of human dignity, a higher good than freedom of speech).

So stop the Euro bashing, and simply accept that we went a different way for very good reasons. The reason Canadians seem to follow a European way rather than an American way might be that they are much more influenced by European philosophy and theories of the state than the USA (which went a decidedly own way beginning in the late 1600s).

Yes, the Occupation forces feared a revival of Naziism in Germany, and therefore forbade the German people from doing what the British and American populations were allowed to do.

Whatever the virtues of that approach (I would have opposed it), now that the Germans are their own masters again, they should throw these ridiculous laws out and allow themselves the freedom to hear stupid ideas.

Laws against Thoughtcrime are not barriers to fascist-style behavior but channels for it.

In the interests of accuracy, I must point out that these are all examples of speech-crime or perhaps write-crime, not thought-crime.

In fact, for an organization that is supposed to promote "human rights," the HRC's agents seem curiously oblivious to basic aspects of constitutional law. In one famous exchange during the Lemire case, Steacy (ed. of the CHRC) was asked "What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?" -- to which he replied "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value."

I guess so.

Fair enough, but since we have not, as yet, worked out a way of finding out what people are really thinking, we can only punish the manifestations of their thoughts, in their speech and writing.

Look at it this way: it would be a defense against the charge of Holocaust-denial for a defendant to argue that someone maliciously inserted the word "not" into his criminal sentence, "The Holocaust did not happen". He would prove that he had Good Thoughts.

And on the other hand, if he wrote "The Holocaust did happen", but did so in such a way as to make it clear that he thought it did not, and was just being sarcastic, then he would be convicted, not for his writing as such, but for his criminal thoughts.

One of the things that has always puzzled, and appalled me, about Europeans, is that they are happy with the idea of Thoughtcrime. The attitude on capital punishment, on guns, on the welfare state -- these are arguable differences, and really just reflect differences in culture and preferences about security and risk. But the very concept that certain ideas are illegal ... what has gone wrong here?

Doug, you cannot compare holocaust denial to pro- or anti-gun stances. The holocaust is a fact every which way you look at it, and courts all over Europe have been ruling accordingly. There is in fact a standing ruling in Germany**, that the factuality of the holocaust need not be proved in every court case time and again. I assume that this is the case in other countries too. So someone saying "The holocaust didn't happen, and XYZ is a liar for claiming it did."*** will be basically get for libel or for lying --not for a "thought crime".

I challenge you to state here that David Irving and his ilk should be free to tell holocaust survivors to their faces that "it didn't happen".(Quoting Irving here: "On the backseat of Sen. Edward Kennedy's car in Chappaquidick died more women than in the gas chambers of Auschwitz."). Life is just too short to take this up in the courts every five minutes (and THIS is a basic difference between American and European systems: Here, things are not settled in courts time and again but there will be a law enacted that settles the matter. Do you wonder why Irving has never tried to challenge any of these laws? He would have had various chances up to the the European Court of Human Rights ).

**This kind of standing ruling has also been employed in the trials after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda: After courts spent weeks and weeks in every trial against génocidaires to establish that a genocide did in fact take place, there was a high court ruling stating the obvious so that the courts could get down to work.

***And when you listen to these guys you will hear MUCH worse.

I won't speak for Doug, but I will emphatically state that David Irving should be free to tell Holocaust survivors "it didn't happen." Oddly enough, I also think Klansman should be free to claim that blacks are inferior; Neo-Nazis should be free to claim Jews are genetic filth; and that you and I should be free to express our opinions in public without being hassled by bored bureaucrats.

I'm nutty that way.

Why are people so hostile to freedom? What's the turnoff?

Girl: When, at British dinner parties, I try to defend American gun laws, or lack thereof, I know that the other guests think I am completely mad, although, being British, they are too polite to say so to my face. It's just one of those very deep, unbridgable cultural differences.

So I must tell you, I just cannot understand how a democrat can argue in favor of laws which criminalize stating falsehoods.

I don't know where to start. All I can do is quote that well-known American right-winger who said "“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently”.

>30 GirlFromIpanema:

The point isn't that in the US and other countries with a US understanding of fee speech you can't prosecute someone for holocaust denial until you prove the holocaust happened, the point is that, except in very narrow circumstances, free speech in the US doesn't involve validating truth claims at all. That is, under American law, the factuality of a claim is not considered relevant to one's legal right to say it.

This gets the state out of the business of refereeing who's right, and the population out of the subservient and dangerous business of looking to and trusting in the state to know the truth. To me at least, the latter looks like why an educated, modern, and highly cultured civilization marginalized, demonized and finally exterminated six million Jews with almost no popular resistance.

Tim:"free speech in the US doesn't involve validating truth claims at all. That is, under American law, the factuality of a claim is not considered relevant to one's legal right to say it."

OK, I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining.

Tim: "To me at least, the latter looks like why an educated, modern, and highly cultured civilization marginalized, demonized and finally exterminated six million Jews with almost no popular resistance."

That is a cheap shot. The methods of marginalisation and demonising work independently of whether there is a codified "free speech" paragraph in the laws of the land. As I already mentioned Rwanda above: that was a prime example how this works. Demonising a group for years and finally label them "cockroaches" that need to be exterminated. I am currently reading on the Rwandan genocide and the parallels give me the creeps.

Edited to add that I am off to bed now, so play nicely while I am away! ;-)

Whew!

If Germans had trusted Hitler and had been willing to blindly follow his orders, he would have won a free election, which he never did.

If, after his constitutional coup, they would have blindly followed his authority, he would not have had to terrorize and murder his numerous German opponents, and set up concentration camps for Communists, Socialists and other of his political opponents.

During the war, there was even less opportunity to oppose the Nazis. Courageous Germans, like the White Rose Society, who did, were swiftly executed.

In countries occupied by the Nazis, the indigenous authorities -- with a few honorable exceptions -- were perfectly willing to round up "their" Jews for shipment to the camps. Would Americans have been different?

Americans did not, by and large, protest the lynchings of thousands of Blacks in the South, and depriving them of the vote. Few protested when Japanese Americans were sent off to camps.

People obey their governments, mostly, even in liberal democracies.

Disasters like the victory of Communism, and fascism, are not the expression of a timeless essence of the peoples in whose countries they triumph, but are contingent events, the results of dozens of factors.

Of course, some of those factors are related to "national character" but this is usually a complex and multi-faceted thing which can be mobilized for good and ill. Far more important are the political decisions made by elites: if we had been less dogmatic about giving a Germany a pure Republic, with proportional representation, the Nazis and Communists between them could not have paralyzed the Reichstag -- a constitutional monarch, instead of an elected president, might have played a stabilizing role. If the Allied forces had moved swiftly to punish Hitler's violation of the treaty Germany had signed after the war ... or if that treaty had not saddled the Germans with draconian reparations ... we would not have had the Holocaust.

I believe that if Europeans look objectively at these ridiculous thoughtcrime laws, they will get rid of them.

We need to keep in mind that, in the US, "free speech" is not absolute and never has been. You cannot be criminally punished for publicly stating falsehoods, but you can be civilly liable for doing so under certain circumstances.

We (Americans) are not free to say whatever we like whenever we like. We may not agree with obscenity laws (you may be criminally punished for violating them), but they are there. The rationale is that certain language has no value in public spaces, if it cannot be justified as political speech.

The anti-hate speech laws in certain countries reflect the view, of the lawmakers at least, that certain speech has no public value, is insidious and more harmful to the denizens and institutions of those countries than the right to speak "freely" is beneficial. As BGP stated earlier, if the citizens and residents of those countries don't like the laws they are free to attempt to change them.

If a population can become marginalized and demonized regardless if there exists "free speech" paragraph in the laws of the land, then what is the need for laws which constrict what a person can and cannot say?

Of course, it's our betters who determine what is an what is not acceptable speech. You and I, citygirl, don't really determine much. The myth that we do is pernicious and harmful to society in general.

Of course, it's our betters who determine what is an what is not acceptable speech.

Yes and no. Because of they way the speech laws are structured, questions of e.g, "obscenity" are to be judged by a community, not national, standard. Judged by judges (and sometimes juries), by which I think you may have meant by our "betters." We elect the lawmakers, the lawmakers make the laws, the people retain attorneys, attorneys argue for the people, or the organization, or the state, the judges interpret the laws in light of the arguments. I don't feel powerless at all.

I also do not feel powerless in this regard; however, I am very unlikely to ever have the means to hire an attorney.

Well, then, aren't you glad the ACLU exists?

Yup. And Legal Defense Fund, and Public Defenders, and TV shows.

>34 GirlFromIpanema: That is a cheap shot.

It's a shot, certainly. And a Godwin's law trigger, if that hadn't been triggered already. So, okay, I'll grant you that.

The methods of marginalisation and demonising work independently of whether there is a codified "free speech" paragraph in the laws of the land.

Well, the codification is probably not essential, but wouldn't you agree that free speech is the enemy of marginalization and demonization at least at the extreme. That is, wasn't Nazi control of media a key element of Nazi power and the enfeblement of anti-Nazi forces? I'm not as familiar with Rwanda, but I understand that control of the radio was a big factor there, and that freedom of speech has been critical in bringing the country to a realization of what happened.

If you grant this basic idea, I think the onus is on you to explain why free speech is good only up to a point, and to explain how that "point" is to be maintained where you want it now and never cut into the really important stuff.

The First Amendment has an simple extremism to it that makes drift difficult. The legal action happens very far from the core--protecting potentially important speech--in areas like whether flag-burning and lap-dancing are "speech". But European standards are not like that. Vague rules aganst lying about the past or insulting groups aren't likely to stay in the same place forever.

Lastly, given Europe's greater political control over judicial power, vague rules allow for singling-out. Whether true or not, that's what's being alleged here: That Ms. Bardot is being prosecuted for anti-muslim comments while you can march through the center of Paris shouting "death to the Jews" with impunity. Again, whether that's true or not--and I have no idea--is irrelevant. In the US, the question simply wouldn't arise. What a former actress or a political demonstrator says about muslims or jews or anybody else is, simply, not a legal or political question.

> Obscenity

Europeans should understand a few things about this:

1. I don't think there's been a case in the last 20 years of a basically political statement being ruled obscene. For example, you can't get a holocaust denier on the grounds that this opinion is "obscene."

2. Porn has simply won. "Local standards" are getting harder and harder to enforce. My favorite example of this was the obscenity case where the prosecutor described local aversion to pornography and the defendant replied by subpoenaing the rental statistics at the local motel—porno all day long, of course.

I don't think we should minimize the fact that free speech in America has had to be fought for.

I am no fan of Howard Zinn, but his history of the US is a handy compendium of the dark side of American history, and you will find plenty of examples there where free speech was brutally suppressed, sometimes by long prison sentences given by the Federal system, sometimes by local mob action.

We have evolved over time into something better -- just as the Germans have. To be sure, the existence of the First Amendment was a great help, since it set a standard which all the above-mentioned incidents violated.

Bloody hell. I've got a degree in Agriculture, not in Law, people ;-D.

I think I need to explain that there isn't a LAW in Germany, that makes Holocaust denial illegal. It's the interpretation of laws, that makes it illegal. Courts have interpreted Art. 1 and 5 of the Constitution and § 130 (and §126) of the Penal Law Code. (see also my message no. 30). Nowhere in these articles and laws it says "Holocaust denial is punishable". They deal with basic rights: Human dignity (Art 1 GG), Freedom of speech and information (Art. 5 GG, see here for english text: http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/parliament/function/legal/germanbasiclaw.pdf ), §130 STGB (incitement of hatred, guidance towards criminal offenses, see Wikipedia) and §126 STGB.

From the Wikipedia German article on Holocaust Denial (translation mine):
-begin quote-
On 13 April 1994 the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ruled that the denial of the Holocaust is not covered by the basic right of freedom of speech according to Art. 5, par. 1, GG (Az. 1 BvR 23/94, published in BVerfGE 90, 241). This was considered to be

"a factual claim which according to countless eye witness reports and documents, as well as rulings of courts in numerous cases and findings of historical science is evidently untrue. Standing alone, a claim of this content will not be covered by free speech."

The Court referred to its constant and consolidated rulings, according to which conscious and proven untrue factual claims are not even covered by the basic right to free speech. So even the examination whether holocaust denial would be a protectable opinion in the sense of free speech is answered in the negative. This very clear rejection finds some critic as well: Statements that deny the holocaust are frequently not only simple statements of fact but include value judgements (such as attributing the whole discussion to "the Jewish world conspiracy.--note by GFI). The latter as such are covered by the basic right of free speech, even if they are patent nonsense or libelous. Such statements are only excluded from the basic-right protection when the basic rights limitations are concerned (this concerns the rights to live, to human dignity, etc. codified in the human rights articles of the Basic Law/GG).
-end quote-

So you (one) cannot claim Art. 5 GG to cover your Holocaust denial when someone comes at you with §130 STGB for inciting people to set fire to the barracks at Buchenwald by telling them the Holocaust never happened and they should get rid of that Potemkin village. You can claim Art. 5 for the Potemkin part of the speech, and try to get your neck out of the noose.

Re: B. Bardot/muslims and marching through the streets of Paris shouting "death to the Jews".
At least in Germany, both occurrences are covered by the same laws. BB (at least as far as the quotes in the newspapers go) would certainly be covered by Art. 5, the demonstrators are sailing more closely to the wind, since they are threatening bodily harm (where, again, Art. 1 would supercede Art. 5, and certain other laws would apply).

I’m tapping into this one late, but here goes. I'll stick more to the context of Codyed's example.

I’ve often felt frustrated that, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, many Europeans (perhaps particularly French) perceive the U.S. as more repressive regarding freedom of speech. This should be one of our aces but why isn’t this message getting across? Twenty years as an American in France and I’m still arguing this one across the dinner table or at the bar. (Even more, lately.) I’ll say more about the possible reasons, in a minute, but to begin with Codyed’s example:

Personally, I think it’s absurd to prosecute Bardot for her statements. (And she has a history of these kinds of remarks—not just about Muslims, but about gays, too. Other French entertainers like Patrick Sébastien and Dieudonné have been caught up in the same laws.) They’re all cranks, as far as I’m concerned. But I also believe it’s not a crime to talk (or write) like an idiot.

The state has more urgent business to attend to than regulating expression.

There are other more serious examples than those found in the Land of Silly Celebrities. These I find potentially more sinister. For instance, François Mitterand’s physician published a book which revealed how Mitterand had lied about his health (his cancer) and policeman literally went into bookstores and removed the book from the shelves. This is recent history, folks.

I think this is deplorable, and I am grateful that some of these restrictions don’t apply in the U.S. At the same time, I wonder if some earlier posts in this thread are a little too self-congratulatory about the American scene. This brings me to my opening remark, about perceptions.

Censorship comes in many forms, both in Silly Celebrity Land and for politicians. And I think even the frivolous examples become serious because they trivialize American freedoms and hurt us in the propaganda war.

For instance, the FCC wastes time and taxpayer dollars pursuing (or pursuing, then dropping) charges regarding Janet Jackson’s wardrobe stunt or Bono saying “fucking brilliant” at the Golden Globes ceremony. This is not only silly—it leads to an insidious self-censorship in the media. I remember a NYT column by Frank Rich, boy liberal, in which he mocked the FCC’s reaction to Bono...then Rich went on to use circumlocution rather than actually quote the word in question. Quite a pirouette, to defend free speech while ducking.

Away from Silly Celebrity Land: of course there’s the famous case of Dick Cheney telling Leahy to go “fuck yourself”.

When the Vice-President of the U.S. says something on the Senate floor, it is news. But could the mainstream media report it? Most resorted, again, to self-censorship and/or circumlocution. I recall the term “barnyard epithet” being thrown around.

Golly.

I could also bring up problems of the Bush administration’s opacity and abuse of the term “security” but this post is already getting long, and those are very complex issues; and my point here is that we have trouble with even some simple stuff.

And this simple stuff is unfortunately what foreigners often hear most loudly about us. Janet Jackson or TV censoring Amy Winehouse’s tattoo. Why must we shoot ourselves in the foot this way?

Let me finish with a very recent example of media self-censorship: recently there was a flap in France when President Sarkozy told a guy who refused to shake his hand: “Casse-toi, pauvre con!” This translates as “Get lost, asshole.” (Or maybe “sod off” or “piss off” in British English.)

The New York Times translated it as “poor jerk”. Hardly the same. They preferred to distort rather than report, for fear of offending some Americans. AND, I add, this is not simply an internal concern for the U.S., because this distortion was widely reported in the media here, and mocked. Rightly, to my dismay.

And hey, it wasn’t even Bush’s fault this time.

I heard from a friend in Brussells that the European Union is going to codify "historically-inaccurate speech" laws, under the slogan "He who controls the past controls the future." The body charged with establishing what is true and false about the past will be called The Ministry of Truth.

Maybe one needs to grow up in Central Europe to "get" it. And seeing this across the valley every morning when opening the curtains is a good reminder. It's not all theory and wisecracking.
Americans tell us we don't "get" slavery. Well, maybe we don't. But it works the other way around, too.

Krolik, see it this way: There are certain areas that are touchy in every society. In the USA, it's nudity (and bad language to some degree). Much less of a problem in most European countries. We, on the other hand have problems with Nazis marching down the streets and chanting disgusting paroles in front of the Holocaust Memorial. Which is less of a problem in Washington or Los Angeles than in Berlin.

What *would* be the reaction of the American press if Nazis did indeed march past the Reichstag and celebrate in front of the Holocaust Memorial?

Girl: The case you raise hypothetically for Germany actually occurred in reality in the US. See here. Hats off to the ACLU on this one (for a change).

I suppose if a million Nazis rallied in Berlin, we would be worried, as all democrats should be. But if a few thousand did .... well, Germany is a big country and in a population of tens of millions there will be a small percentage of lunatics. So what?

In general, the practice for Americans now is this: although there are those on the Left who would like to ban speech that offends their favored client groups, generally Amerians are free so say and write what they want. (And there were, and probably are, those on the Right who would, if they could, ban pro-Communist speech -- and, as I said earlier, they often got their way, in the past.)

Issues do arise regarding public order -- such as that intended Nazi march -- but no one is going to go to jail in the USA for writing that the Holocaust never happened, or that the world was created 6000 years ago, or that George Bush's grandfather was a secret Nazi, or that the US government was behind the AIDS virus and 9/11, or that God should damn America, etc.

What's the american position on D notices the UK government's prefered method of "persueding" the press not to publish a story or details?

What about court orders - can US courts order details not to be published? How is this a free press? Rather than some vague thought, surely seeing that justice is enacted fairly is the foundation of so many other freedoms? Is this different from being able to say something that few if any other people believe to be true?

>50 GirlFromIpanema: In the USA, it's nudity (and bad language to some degree).

"Obscenity" has largely disappeared as a legal claim (see above). Nudity and language are only issues on television and radio on airwaves (ie., not cable, internet, DVD, etc.). The idea is that airwaves, being finite, require regulation. I don't find this particularly impressive, but it's being overtaken by non-airwave formats, and the fact remains that US censorship is restricted to scarce-media situations, not ideas or assertions based per se. That is, in German, denying the holocaust is a crime whether you express that opinion in print, on TV, on cable, on radio or on the internet. Showing a naked woman in the US is only a crime on public airwaves, and not on other media.

>chanting disgusting paroles

Your English and your argument is excellent always, so this no general hit, but "paroles" doesn't mean what you think it means in English.

>What *would* be the reaction of the American press if Nazis did indeed march past the Reichstag and celebrate in front of the Holocaust Memorial?

The press would report the even unfavorably, I'm sure. That's not the same thing as the police hauling the neo-Nazis into court.

>52 reading_fox:

In general under US law since the 70s the press has been allowed to publish official secrets (eg., the Pentagon Papers, recent NYT articles on wiretapping, the international monetary transfer system). That doesn't mean that administrations don't request that certain things be withheld for national-security reasons. Generally the press will obey such requests for a time, given a credible reason (eg., soldiers' lives in danger), but not for as long as the government would want them to.

#53:""paroles" doesn't mean what you think it means in English."

Ooops. :-o I should *use* that dictionary... :-)

I think the whole affair boils down to one of these cultural differences, and the split seems to be, once again, largely along the line between common law and civil law countries. So I guess we won't solve this (unless the common law countries expect the others to quit their evil ways... ;-) ).

"DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. " (Taken from "The eight stages of genocide", at genocidewatch.org).

The real reason we don't have laws in the United States which criminalize the utterance of historical untruths is that we have so many crazy people who believe, and might therefore utter, historical untruths that the prisons would be clogged.

For instance, one in twenty Americans do not believe we landed on the moon. And don't get me started about 9/11.

*snerk*

>Ooops. :-o I should *use* that dictionary... :-)

Why, when we're happy to correct the very rare misstep. I just don't want you coming to the United States and telling the immigration officer that you don't agree with American paroles. He'll assume you are on parole*—on leave from jail.

Then again, with what you've said, maybe you should be in jail! ;)

>For instance, one in twenty Americans do not believe we landed on the moon. And don't get me started about 9/11.

I hear you and agree, but I also think it's worthwhile to step back and look at the US as something different. The US isn't "Denmark but bigger." We're huge, and we have an amazing degree of historical, cultural and ethnic diversity, and deep traditions of freedom and individuality that encourage people to speak their mind, whatever it is. Most European countries have a single, centralized educational system, with one textbook for every kid in the country. In the US it's not just states that make decisions, it's towns, schools and even teachers.

Out of two hundreds years of local democracy and freedom came the microchip, the spork, and LibraryThing.com!

If US the has more weirdos than Denmark, it has much less than "Europe" as a combined entity. Nobody is asking Ms. Ipanema to defend the crazy things Serbian nationalists believe.

So accusations that the US has weirdos just bounces off me. :)

*Which, Wikipedia tells us, comes from the prisoner giving his "word" that he will return.