h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Freedom of speech or contempt of court?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7080649.stm

Personally I don't know enough about contempt of court to comment: I didn't even realise that comments disparaging a trial made after the event could be contemptuous. You learn something every day!

Well if it wasnt a fair trial he goes off to lodge an appeal, but you cant just rubbish the courts verdict in such a prominent way and expect no come back, not if your a lawyer. Im just astonished he didnt work that out for himself.

Even being a member of some less "establishment" establishments I know there are certain things you cant say in certain ways about TPTB.

If he has a right to say such things because they are justified then hopefully justice will be done, but even if he was in the right Id have thought a professional lawyer would have got his message across in a more circumspect way that wouldnt land him in hot water.

>Maybe they've had to do this in Germany (and Austria) because there are still a lot of people around who supoort or supported the holocaust. The Nazis didn't work in a vacuum - they were tremendously popular. Whereas in this country, facism has been utterly rejected by the vast majority whenever it rears it's head.

Not quite. The Nazis popularity came from their unabashed nationalism and populist stance on everything from foreign-policy to economics. They managed to get support from everyone from disillusioned workers to nervous capitalists. However, what should be pointed out is whilst the Nazis anti-semitism was in full view (and much of it, lest we forget, was deliberately stoked-up by the party playing on existing prejudices; the same goes for their anti-communism) the holocaust was entirely hidden from the German people (as were other Nazi policies such as their sterilisation of the mentally-ill) because they knew the Germans would never accept it. All the Germans knew was that the Jews were being "taken East" to the newly-conquered Slav territories where they were to be "re-settled". The idea that ordinary Germans supported the holocaust is nonsense - they couldn't support something they knew nothing about.

There's a notion that because many Germans indulged their racism towards the Jews with Nazi encouragement that they were somehow "responsible" for the holocaust. I can't accept this argument because it denies boundaries and is a typical "slippery-slope" piece of logic. There are degrees of racism. For some it's mere jokes, for some it moves into verbal abuse, for some into violence, for some killing and for some genocide. I shouldn't really have to say it but for a lot of racists a psychological (even moral) lines gets drawn at one of these things. For the common or garden racist it tends to be the first two. For ideological racists like the nazis there wasn't one. That doesn't mean that the Germans who swore at Jews in the streets would have approved of the holocaust. Humans don't tend to work in those black or white ways.

It's true that fascism never got much of a foothold here (beyond a bit of popularity for Mosley - himself never the most impressive or threatening fascist leader - in the 1930s) but we shouldn't be too smug. It's worth looking again at the British public's response to Jewish refugees fleeing the open oppression on continental Europe. It wasn't exactly something to be proud of.

Regarding the BNP and freedom of speech. First we don't have absolute freedom of speech in the UK nor should we. We have limits on it pertaining to inciting violence or killing. Beyond that, we have extensive liberty in what we can say, as indeed we should.

Personally, I think the BNP should be allowed to say what they want because to ban far-right parties has two unwanted reprecussions. First of all it gives said far-right a legitimate claim to oppression by the state which fuels the victim-mentality and conspiratorial thinking that tends to fuel extremist politics. Secondly, the political right in general can call foul. If the extreme-right aren't allowed to indulge their rhetoric why is the exterme-left allowed to? If fascists are banned why not communists?

Freedom of speech issues get really complicated when laws start getting passed. It seems a shame to me that there have to be laws to protect what should, in a ideal world, be perfectly self-evident. The fact that there are groups who will, shall we say, cynically exploit the letter of the law to protect their right to spread a doctrine of hate is a pity but unfortunately an inevitable side-effect.

A few years back, Roymondo came up with an idea that is, on the surface, brilliant in its simplicity but probably unworkable in practice.
There should (emphasis on "should") be only one law necessary: You have the right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't interfere with ANYONE else's right to do what they want.

America's constitution, and the 2nd Amendment (I think, if that's one about freedom of speech) in particular, seems to throw up the occasional paradox.
For example, a few years back GLAAD tried to bring the weight of law down on some record company or other because of the anti-gay sentiments expressed in some of their artistes' work, as these lyrics & statements violated the legal right to freedom from persecution, incitement to hatred, etc.
The 2nd Amendment, however, is a fundamental statement of said artistes' right to express whatever views or beliefs they may hold.

So who wins?*




*The lawyers, obviously.

That's a damn good law Roymondo! So when you take over some old oil rig (like Sealand) that's your constitution sorted

Zagreb, its not being right wing though that gets the BNP a bad name(although for me its enough) its the racism and the homophobia.

It would be OK to call for a republic but not to urge for violence against the monarch and her family.

Either way I say let people say what they like within the law and let people sort out who to follow base don argument and evidence not supression of ideas.

one love