Forums → WEPR → Free Speech or Hate Speech
| 16 | 15581 |
Some of you have probably already heard about the recent shooting at an event called 'Draw the Prophet'. This was an art contest in Garland, Texas, USA that offered a $10,000 (USD) prize for the best cartoon depiction of the prophet Muhammad. Such depictions were the catalyst behind the Charlie Hebdo attack, as some Muslims feel that such depictions are blasphemous/forbidden.
As the event was wrapping to a close, two armed gunmen drove into the shopping centre where the event was being held. They opened fire on an unarmed security officer, who was injured, and were then shot and killed by police officers already on the site.
My question is this. Was the event itself an exercise in free speech or was it a case of hate speech? Put more broadly, should such events be protected by relevant free speech laws?
As a bit of perspective on the issue, the event was organised by Pamela Geller - an outspoken activist against what she called the Islamization of America and a co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the AFDI as a hate group.
Geller also paid for ads on metropolitan public transportation in several large cities, one of which read: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad." I only mention this because these ads were considered protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the US constitution. So there may be some legal precedent for this art contest to also be protected.
On the flip side of things, here's a definition of hate speech I found (it's the first result on a Google search):
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
So what do you think? Should events like this art contest be protected by free speech laws, or are they cases of hate speech? Would this also apply to, say, Charlie Hebdo? Where is the line?
- 16 Replies
i think that geller is misusing freedom of speech by provoking violence from the muslims, so that she can say "look how bad they are.".
why would you organize such event anyway? also i question the artists who attempt in such event. are they out of inspiration that they need to draw muhammad again? i mean, if muhammad is part of the story you want to tell with your work, then i understand. but drawing muhammad for the sake of drawing muhammad? why? and placing your work under the noses of muslims by using media? knowing that it provokes anger... how stupid can you be? these artists are just using art to get attention. there is no feeling in their work. or they are out of inspiration and are very very desperate...
oh wait.. i got off-topic. mhe, art is more interesting then another texas shooting anyway... good luck with the topic.. =)
I think the difference between this despicable event and the Charlie Hebdo caricatures is that the latter is satire, while the former is blunt provocation. I realise the difference is not a discrete one, and a satire is always supposed to provoke a bit, but Gellers event has taken it way too far.
.
Already the name of the event gives away the reason for it happening: 'Draw the Prophet'. These people knew that drawing Muhammad is considered sacrilegious in Islam (if anything, the high security measures gives it away), which makes this event one big provocation. Charlie Hebdo at least tries to make people think about a topic by addressing it in a provocative way. This event here does nothing of the sort. The slogan of the ads is ridiculous: 'Support the civilised man. Defeat Jihad'. Not only is it treating a whole ethnicity as savages, it also does nothing to help anyone or defeat anyone. The sole purpose is for Geller to advance her agenda; she shamelessly instrumentalised the attack in her favour by representing it as justification for her racist slander. Mind you, I am in no way accusing her of having wilfully caused the shooting, but I am convinced she expected some reaction she would then use, which she did (NB if she was honestly not expecting a strong reaction, she would be enormously dense). The fact that people died, while not directly her fault, just makes it that much more despicable.
I'll just leave this here.
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
This is a situation that can really only be decided on a case by case basis. Geller's contest would appear to be a very obvious case of hate speech. Her outspoken opinions on Islam, the advertising slogan, and the knowledge of the previous attacks on Charlie Hebdo all show that she very clearly knew her actions had a high probability of inciting violence. It would be unconstitutional to ban all events that involve drawing Muhammad, so this becomes a matter of the law being unable to act until after something has happened. Without somebody suing for an injunction or a crime being blatantly committed there's nothing that the government could have done to stop this, but now that the shooting has happened it may be possible for Geller to pay for those who were hurt and killed because of her hate speech.
Charlie Hebdo themselves seem to be intentionally crossing the line between free speech and hate speech bit by bit. They were sued and accused of being racist back in 2006 for legitimate satire of extremists, then firebombed in 2012 for doing it again to call attention to Sharia law and discrimination in Muslim countries, and then in 2015 decided to satirize Islam again causing the French government to close various government buildings including schools and embassies in 20 Muslim nations. They know that what they're doing is likely to incite violence at this point but pass it off as "satire" because they satirize everyone else already.
If we're going purely by what the law says, then the line is what a reasonable person would do. If a reasonable person would know that doing something is dangerous then the law expects everyone to not do it. For example; a reasonable person knows that driving while drunk is likely to get someone killed, therefore not only is driving drunk illegal but if you do happen to kill someone while driving drunk you face criminal charges. Conversely; if there's no way for a reasonable person to know that their drunken rant would cause a bunch of neo-nazi skinheads to go out and murder a bunch of Jews they're not responsible despite their actions having a direct affect on those peoples' deaths. A reasonable person would know that Geller's contest was likely to incite violence. A reasonable person would know that continuing to satirize Muhammad and Muslim extremists is only going to provoke more attacks. But what about some peace promoting contest where artists are encouraged to draw famous figures making peace with each other? Muhammad is a major historical figure, it's unlikely that no one would draw him. But can a reasonable person say that Muhammad breaking bread (literally or figuratively) with the likes of Siddartha Guatma or Marting Luther King Jr. is going to cause extremists to attack? It's a completely different form of artistic representation and would paint the prophet in a fairly positive light so it seems far less likely to cause trouble.
i.e. walking into a mall and screaming "I HAVE A BOMB!"
That is not hate speech, that is a threat. Hate speech, as the definition says, 'may incite violence or prejudicial actions' against a certain group. As such, it doesn't need to be directly threatening a group to be against the law. As a bit of perspective, the founder of the extreme right party in France was condemned several times for hate speech even though the statements were not directly threatening somebody.
I find it more disturbing that America is willing to change our rights to adapt to someone else's religious beliefs.
It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. Have you read the definition of hate speech that Moe posted in the OP?
Then ignore her. Protest her lawfully. Disagree. But don't blow it up, both literally and in the media. If she wants to deliberately be a jerk, she has that right.
At home or with friends, she does. In this case, no she doesn't. Again, read the definition of the law against hate speech.
.
What I wonder, however, is how the ads could get away with the right to free speech. I believe printing these ads deserves condemning as much as the event itself.
If you went to Iran and preached the gospel of Christ publicly, you could (and probably would) be executed. Their country, their beliefs, their rules. In America, it's your country, anyone's beliefs, compromised rules.
Well, two wrongs don't make a right.
------------
Maybe it's worth considering that what the Charlie Hebdo satirists stood for was not a hatred and intolerance of Islam (Unlike Geller!), but sectarianism, in that they are trying to promote the coexistence of multiple beliefs/cultures under an egalitarian structure; Add to that the longstanding French tradition of a proclivity towards a public sector devoid of religion, i.e the concept of laïcité, and the differences between the two groups could not be starker. I think the purpose of one's utilisation of speech and expression is equally important in considering whether it can be classified as hate speech. The French seem to be more responsible and sensible over what should constitute as free speech and what is crossing the forbidden line to culture jingoism.
It's not really changing the laws to accommodating the religions of others as much as it is just common sense to know what not to say in public. @Hahiha got it on bang right, what Geller organised wasn't freedom of speech and a gallant upholding of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, it's rather blatant Muslim baiting with no other purpose other than slandering them, which is quite a different ball game from Charlie Hebdo. Though perhaps Charlie Hebdo's editors did try to push their luck with how far their cartoons could go a little.
I have a problem with the definition of hate speech. "[...] may incite violence or prejudicial action [...] disparages or intimidates [...]" are the key phrases here. That is compromising free speech: don't say things because it might result in others breaking the law. No matter how you slice it, ultimately it comes down to violating a right because someone else may violate a law, and it's insane to think or believe we should justify illegal action because we "offended someone" so much that they committed assault, homicide, etc.
The same applies here. Muslims are just as human as anyone else. If they live in America, I would expect them to have to follow the same rules not get some kind of immunity because their religion approves of it. They can protest Geller. They can ignore her. They can NOT take illegal action against her, no matter how much she pokes them with a stick.
Hold on. Noone justifies the incited violence. Killing someone is just as wrong whether it was incited by hate speech or not. This doesn't change. The issue of this thread however is whether hate speech is in itself condemnable or not. Your and our laws stipulate clearly that it is, which means Geller was violating a law by performing that event.
Muslim doctrine allows for them to kill those who mock their holy prophet.
Sorry, but no. This might be the case for extremists, but otherwise muslims don't just kill because of such drawings. For instance, there have been demonstrations against the drawings in Charlie Hebdo and against other caricatures before; plain legal demonstrations and objections against such an affront. But the only people to actually kill are the extremists.
Nah, Muslim doctrine doesn't allow for them to kill those who mock their God and prophet. That's mostly a view taken by extremist groups who oppose the depiction of sentient beings in their art, which in the Muslim world is still a divisive opinion. Shia Muslims and more liberal sects don't disprove of such art, other than idolatry. But more fundamentalist sects like Salafism do. So it's really just a misconception.
Anti-hate speech laws should be viewed laws that set down guidelines for respect, tolerance and mutual coexistence, rather than a passport to immunity. Everyone in the States would try to clamp down and harshly condemn immediately a prominent Neo-Nazi group espousing anti-Semitism if it sprang up. It's really no different here, when Geller is comparing Muslims to savages and calls for people to go against them, whilst painting them all as demonic mischief makers.
There are rules to follow, but the rules don't state that a person can have freedom of speech without a degree of responsibility.
i just want to point out @MattEmAngel that what i wrote is indeed irrelevant to the question. it's also why i posted the line about me being off-topic...
no need to get bold headed over those things when i already left the topic.
So I think Matt is taking a really interesting line here. This contest should be protected by the free speech clause because it shouldn't qualify as hate speech. So Matt's claim comes down to this: the definition of hate speech used by the courts in the US needs to be revised. Or, at the very least, the definition of offer is wrong.
I'm happy for the discussion to continue regarding the definition we have on offer. Though we should perhaps try to argue for the opposite view - that this contest is protected. I think looking more closely at the court's decisions on those ads I mentioned in the OP might be telling. The reason for this is that, once we can understand the opposition's point of view and argument, we are in a better position to refute their argument. It's also just a fun exercise in argumentation and debate.
But back to Matt's point. So I'm hoping @MattEmAngel might help us out here. As I understand it, your disagreement with the definition is that it's too broad. In other words, it classifies things as hate speech that shouldn't be classified as such.
Matt also suggests a possible revision. Hate speech should be classified as speech that threatens another person's life or well-being. (Please correct me if I've misunderstood or put words into your mouth.)
My worry with this line is that such acts are already covered by another criminal act called (Criminal) Harassment. Though this is a very broad category itself, it does seem to capture the sort of thing you're after. "In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing" (ibid.). There is also a brief statement on religious harassment: "Verbal, psychological or physical harassment is used against targets because they choose to practice a specific religion. Religious harassment can also include forced and involuntary conversions" (ibid.).
So my worry is that, given your concerns over the definition of hate speech, there doesn't seem to be any legal room for hate speech. Of course, this isn't necessarily a negative outcome - perhaps hate speech is a legal overreaction to the political correctness movement that's been happening over the past few decades.
So I just wanted to get your claim on offer a little more clear. And maybe you could speak to the worry I mention above.
Though we should perhaps try to argue for the opposite view - that this contest is protected. I think looking more closely at the court's decisions on those ads I mentioned in the OP might be telling.
This article from the New York Times seems to be a good source on why the ads were considered free speech. Apparently the judge took the "Support Israel" part of the ad as the key factor in its meaning. Because it expressed "a pro-Israel foreign policy" the judge determined it was a political ad and thus protected by the First Amendment. He also found the MTA's policy on not running demeaning ads to be a violation of the First Amendment because it protected some groups but not others.
Thanks for the clarification, Matt. And just to avoid confusion, I deleted the post in which you were worried about a contradiction. I'll need to have a think about the line you're taking, but I'm sure others want to weigh in.
Edit: Oh, and the fallacy you're talking about falls within the category of an ad hominem, though it could also be classified as a red herring (depending on the circumstances). But any response that relies on a devaluation of a person's character in order to disparage their argument/statement is an ad hominem attack.
Users of such a card would readily call any form of disagreement "hate speech" for the sole reason of discrediting the speaker by making them out to be biased (hey @FishPreferred, what fallacy is that?)That would be both an ad hominem and an appeal to motive, but people who cry "hate speech" at every slight generally aren't trying to win an argument; they're just tilting at windmills (like we saw with Andelhofs in that contest thread) or looking for an excuse to file a lawsuit.
Let me clarify: hate speech is a label and nothing more. You have used the word "hate" in your speech. That is classified as free speech and is not illegal. If it devolves into threats of illegal action, it would be classified as criminal harassment (or whatever else it may be that is illegal).I think "hate speech" is more commonly used to describe a hate-mongering tactic for rallying supporters to commit violent, abusive, or otherwise illegal actions against the subject, essencially making it on par with conspiracy to commit those crimes. Inciting violence from the subject is not the goal.
.
"I hate [hated party] and want to kill them all" isn't necessarily hate speech, whereas "we must destroy [hated party] for the good of mankind" most certainly is.
they should have modified the slogans and advertisement for the event so that it does not preach hate.
the event would be allowed until the point where the hate speech starts. (drawing muhammed is not hate speech) cops should be around to control it and make preemptive arrests where needed so that it wont be able to continue.
the event itself will not get extra security, only if they pay for it themselves. at most a few extra guys who can make the event stop when it go's to far...
(that is in this case, other cases would be different. i guess it's good that hate speech are more often not this obvious)
The event and resulting aftermath posted by the OP cannot be considered a breach of Free Speech, because Free Speech is a Federal amendment. The government cannot lock you up and/or punish you for what someone says or expresses. This does not mean, however, that said person cannot be vilified for producing said expression. With this in mind, we have to dissect what is Free Speech and what is Hate Speech.
I ask because I'm confused about the goal of the law. The definition of hate speech in the first post, for example, seems to indicate the law is meant to prevent crime and prevent "disparagement." What exactly is the law meant to protect?
The ABA (the Federal organization that tests and regulates attorneys and the Bar exam) defines hate speech as "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." By this definition, the Draw Muhammad Day event is effectively both Free Speech and Hate Speech, as the creation of the event did indeed insult/offended the practitioners of Islam. But while the hate speech should be discouraged, there shouldn't be policies forcing the hate speech to be dismantled. So there should be a balance between protecting the peoples' lives and protecting the peoples' freedoms. That's what makes the line between Free Speech and Hate Speech so blurred.
You must be logged in to post a reply!