There's an interesting test case going on in the United States Supreme Court at the moment. It's a case involving some weighty issues, such as freedom of expression. It's about whether one particular dwindling minority group has the right to express its no-doubt sincerely-held views in a manner steeped in tradition..

And when it's put that way, you'd think that the court should surely defend the liberties of this endangered sub-species of Americans. Unfortunately, the minority group in question is the Ku Klux Klan, and the court is ruling on whether the First Amendment of the United States Consitution gives the KKK an inalienable legal right to express their hatred of non-Caucasians by burning crosses.

The case has come about because of a lower court ruling that a Virginia state law, which bans the burning of crosses in order to intimidate others, is unconstitutional. The case involves three defendants who were convicted and sentenced to three months in jail for cross burning, but who subsequently had their convictions overturned by lower federal courts because they were deemed to violate the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression.

Rather disturbingly, The American Civil Liberties Union - which spends a lot of its time trying to restrain the worst censorious excesses of America's religious right - has sided with the cross burners, arguing that they're entitled to express their political views, no matter how repulsive those views might be.

It's certainly an interesting case. For one thing, it reveals a cultural difference between Europe and the United States. In Britain and most of Europe, incitement to racial hatred is illegal, so a case like this would never arise; the bigots would be banned. But in America, liberty is a central article of faith for many - something that must be defended even when the beneficiaries of that liberty are people who, given the chance, would most certainly curtail many other people's liberties. While I would sincerely hope that no-one on h2g2 has much sympathy with the general outlook of the KKK, I wouldn't be surprised to see some Researchers taking their side in this case, believing that free speech must be defended at all costs.

Certainly, even leaving aside any philosophical arguments about free speech, there are practical dangers in declaring any point of view to be unsuitable for broadcast. For one thing, it enables loathsome bigots to pose as martyrs being cruelly censored by the establishment. Perhaps the most repulsive sight at the 2001 UK General Election was that of the British National Party leader Nick Griffin, the far-right party's candidate for Oldham West, standing on the platform at the count wearing a gag and a T-shirt proclaiming that he'd been 'gagged for telling the truth'. Griffin, along with all the other candidates in the constituency, had been banned from making a speech after the count for fear that such speeches might inflame violent passions in a town that had recently seen serious racial violence.

But while it's clearly true that allowing extremists to speak might provoke civil disorder, there's also the genuine risk that those who are prevented from proclaiming extreme views verbally might turn to violent means of expression.

Even so, on balance, just this once I hope that the American Civil Liberties Union ends up on the losing side. I'd argue that the liberty of Virginia's resident rednecks to release their bile with impunity should have less priority than the right of that state's non-Caucasian citizens to live free from intimidation from idiots.

Freedom of speech is precious indeed, but it must have some limits. Even the most ardent libertarian might draw the line at speech that advocated the murder of specific groups in society, or that encouraged other forms of terrorist violence. Those who cannot use liberty responsibly should not expect to keep it. In my view, that includes those who use their words, or their wood and petrol, to express mindless bigotry.

And now, a heart-rending story of human suffering. Spare a thought for Julian Watt and Blair Stewart, two young New Zealanders who, through no fault of their own, have tragically been forced to spend three days in a pub.

It all started when they nipped out to the Clarks Junction Hotel, near Outram, for a quick drink. It ended up being a long drink because, while they were there, heavy snow fell on Outram, causing the closure of the only road which passes the building.

Mr Watt insists that he's tried to escape and get home to Dunedin three times, using a tractor on one occasion, but has repeatedly been forced back to the bar.

He's an architect, and has missed two days of work because of his pub plight, but has said (by phone, presumably):
'I think my boss is pretty good about it.'

However, he added ruefully:
'I'm beginning to smell a bit, because I'm in the same change of clothes.'

Adrian Bardrick, the pub's owner, has said that it's the first time in his five years running the Clarks Junction Hotel that he's been snowed in. Earlier this week, he added:
'If the trucks don't arrive in the next two days, we'll start to get a bit short of things. But there's plenty of beer because there's been no-one here to drink it.'

Well - no-one except himself, Julian and Blair, that is. So when the prisoners of the pub finally do escape, I hope their bosses will allow them a little time to recover. Not only will they be in need of showers, they'll probably also have quite horrendous hangovers.

Speaking of time off work takes my mind back to some terrible traumas I suffered during the 1998 World Cup. I missed the first goal of the tournament because my boss summoned me out of the TV room, where most of my colleagues were gathered, to tell me to attend to some trifling work-related matter. Worse than that, I was ordered to work overtime at very short notice on the evening of the Brazil v Netherlands semi-final. Fortunately, it was an assignment that involved going out, so I was able to fit an hour in a pub with a big screen into my evening's schedule.

Thankfully, I'll have no such problems this time around. The only thing that might make me miss matches is oversleeping, given that some of the games kick off at 7:30am UK time. Much has been made in the British press about the way that some pubs in Britain are opening for breakfast in order to accommodate thirsty football fans, and how this might encourage excessive drinking. Personally, I think the World Cup will help me cut down on the booze. I won't want to have a hangover to contend with if a big game is kicking off at 7:30 the next morning.

My second favourite website, the wonderfully subversive and hilarious Anxiety Culture, is currently arguing that people have a civic duty to phone in sick. Its ingenious argument goes like this. First, it says, think of how you really feel when you go to work on a Monday morning. Chances are, you feel a bit sick. Well, then, if you feel sick you shouldn't be at work, should you? And if you say that you'd feel bad about letting your boss down - well, if you're feeling bad, then you shouldn't be going to work! I can't fault their logic, can you?

More seriously, there have been some grumbles from employers about the supposed irresponsibility of TV ads that depict people pulling off elaborate deceptions to get off work and watch the football, and the Umbro website that provides downloadable, printable doctor's notes. Personally, I think that bosses in Britain should be as wise and understanding as those in Italy who have declared 'football days', to coincide with Italy's World Cup matches, during which all employees are welcome to take time off as long as they make it up later. What could be fairer or more sensible than that? After all, at those times most Italian businesses will probably be pretty quiet, because a lot of the customers will be watching the football too.

At least one leading UK management company has advocated firms providing TVs, tea and biscuits to allow their employees to enjoy important games. Richard White of Resource Management said:
'Trying to ignore the World Cup is not going to work. The smart firms will incorporate the World Cup into their business and human resource plans and will suffer less as a result. Companies can avoid mass absenteeism if they face facts and take steps to accommodate the football fans among their staff.'

I couldn't agree more.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the forthcoming festival of footie as much as I think I'm going to. I also hope to see you over at The VSC World Cup 2002 Zone, a specially-constructed World Cup extension of my regular h2g2 football page, The Virtual Supporters' Club.

And before anyone asks: I fancy England to go out in the second round and Argentina to win the Cup. Sorry, but there it is.

Ormy's 'Notes' and Other

Scribblings

The definitive collection

Ormondroyd

30.05.02 Front Page

Back Issue Page