Re: Potential Censorship in Europe

[David Bernstein]

Despite my general views on these issues, I can understand Germany's ban on anti-Semitic speech.  Sometimes, rules need to be tailored to particular cultures and histories, and that may be one of them.  However, the problem Louise describes, that  hate speech rules originally allowed in order to prevent a revival of Naziism in Europe now may shift focus to hate speech rules geared toward preventing speech that offends feminists, is exactly the problem that one would expect to arise once one makes any meaningful exemptions to a free-speech-even-if-it-offends-somone principle (unless an enforceable Constitution very specifically limits the rule to one circumstance, e.g., pro-Nazi speech in Germany).  Over the long-term, public policy is driven more by interest groups and political considerations than by moral considerations, so once an exception is made because of strong moral considerations, that exception will later be used by interest groups seeking to suppress the views of those that disagree with them. Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, but, as Eugene has shown, slippery slope arguments aren't always wrong. As for Louise's specific arguments about Jews, I recall reading that anti-hate speech rules in England originally promulgated to protect Jews wound up being used to suppress pro-Israel speech at English universities.  Arab student groups argued that since the UN decreed that Zionism is racism, pro-Israel speech is inherently racist and therefore illicit.


In a message dated 6/25/2003 11:31:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

25, 2003
Dear David,
        The proposal, as described in the Guardian, is troubling to us of course when contrasted with American free speech ideals.  But it is troubling for two additional reasons.
        First, it is troubling not because we ourselves would not tolerate such a directive, but rather because it pretty much describes the endemic bowdlerizing of grade school textbooks in the United States, well described in recent news reports.  (Not to mention various codes of political correctness in places of business and universities.)  But at least Congress (I think) has confined mandates for "decency" and ideologic gag rules (Rust v. Sullivan) to conditions on spending and the military ("don't ask don't tell").  The states and school districts are doing this bowdlerizing thing to themselves.
        Second ~ to return to Europe ~ the Greek commissioner's proposal is troubling because its emphasis on gender ~ her particular concern ~ seems to downgrade Europe's own postwar norms.  Nazi hate speech in Germany, for example, I believe, is criminalized.  If so, it  is not because freedom of speech is not valued and practiced by Germans, but because of Germany's special experience and knowledge that hate speech whether uttered by government, or encouraged or merely tolerated by government, does indeed incite to genocide even without directness and immediacy.  The failure of the proposal as described in your email to acknowledge specifically the obligation of Europeans to refrain from antisemitic incitement, while specifically insisting on an obligation to avoid sexist speech, is particularly troubling at this time when Europe seems both coopted and intimidated by its growing Moslem extremist populations, and when anti-Jewish violence is recurring with well documented frequency.  What is not a compelling governmental interest in America may well be a compelling governmental interest in Europe.  Any thoughts on this?
Louise