Re: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims
1. Isn't it easy to avoid the hate speech by avoiding the calumny of all Muslims and just report the facts? 2. What defense do you have for such race/religion/ethnic slurs? 3. Truth is what here - that all Muslims do in fact engage in honor killings? Or that just Muslims do? Or that there is something special about Islam that makes this happen? Or what? 4. The defense of reasonable interpretation of the remarks or generous interpretation (treating his remarks as if he really weren't slandering all Muslims and pushing race-hatred) could easily be made a defense. 5. Should we eliminate laws any time there is overzealous enforcement of them? 6. Abraham Lincoln: The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. that's pretty much what I think of it. what is your defense of such hate mongering? Steve On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Jesper Langballe apparently wrote, “Of course Lars Hedegaard shouldn’t have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth instead seems to be that they make do with killing daughters (so-called honour killings) –- and moreover turn a blind eye to rapes by uncles.” He was therefore prosecuted under a Danish law that provides, “Whoever publicly ... issues a ... communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.” Because the law does not allow truth as a defense, he pleaded guilty; you can read his statement here. This happened last month, but I just learned of it, and thought it important to note it. The person about whose statement Langballe was speaking — Lars Hedegaard, president of the Danish Free Press Society — “is facing criminal trial [scheduled to start Jan. 24, 2011] followed by a libel suit.” According to an opinion piece in The Spectator, “[Hedegaard] stated about Muslim ‘honour’ violence within families: ‘They rape their own children.’ In vain did Hedegaard explain the following day that obviously he had not meant by this that all Muslims engage in such practices, any more than saying ‘Americans make good films’ means that all Americans make good films; in vain did he adduce copious evidence of concern — including from Muslim victims themselves — about the amount of sexual and ‘honour’ violence, including rape and incest, within Muslim families.” I was wondering what those who support European-style “hate speech” laws think about this. Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ A life directed chiefly toward the fulfillment of personal desires sooner or later always leads to bitter disappointment. Albert Einstein ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims
1. Well, recall that Langballe was simply saying there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth instead seems to be that they make do with killing daughters (so-called honour killings) -- and moreover turn a blind eye to rapes by uncles. He seems to think that this is a fact. Literally, it probably is a fact: There presumably are such Muslims. In context, it probably is a suggestion that this behavior is especially prevalent among Muslims, for reasons related to their being Muslims. Langballe also thinks this that a fact. I don't know whether it is, but the problem is that Langballe isn't even allowed to raise the defense that it is a fact. 2. If it is a fact, it strikes me as entirely proper to report it, and see what can be done about it. You can call it a slur if you like, but how can we deal with problems in the Muslim community if people get prosecuted for describing such problems? 3. But say that it's false, and that this behavior isn't more common among Muslims than among others. How can we possibly know that, if it's a crime to challenge this orthodoxy? Social science facts, like other scientific facts, can only be established through a process of argument and counterargument. A study that shows there's no problem among Muslims is credible only if we know that people are free to challenge the study, make rival claims, design studies that are aimed to show the contrary, and so on. If it's a crime to argue one position, then we can never know with any confidence that the opposite position is correct. 4. I'm not sure how a defense of reasonable interpretation would help Langballe. Truth appears to be no defense under Danish law; the question is whether a group of persons are ... insulted or denigrated due to their ... religion. The prosecutor seems to think that the statement, even given the there are language, is insulting or denigrating towards Muslims as a religious group, because it suggests that there's something wrong about modern Islam (at least as practiced by many in Denmark). Sounds to me like Langballe is indeed guilty under Danish law. 5. As to overzealous enforcement, the trouble is that I have no idea what properly zealous enforcement would be. On the one hand, the argument seems to be that Langballe is hate mongering. On the other hand, the argument is that his speech is nonetheless constitutionally protected. In the past, when this issue has come up, I've asked Prof. Jamar how he would define what viewpoints people could go to prison for, and what viewpoints people should remain free to express. As I recall, I never got an answer. But I'd be delighted to hear one now. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:08 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims 1. Isn't it easy to avoid the hate speech by avoiding the calumny of all Muslims and just report the facts? 2. What defense do you have for such race/religion/ethnic slurs? 3. Truth is what here - that all Muslims do in fact engage in honor killings? Or that just Muslims do? Or that there is something special about Islam that makes this happen? Or what? 4. The defense of reasonable interpretation of the remarks or generous interpretation (treating his remarks as if he really weren't slandering all Muslims and pushing race-hatred) could easily be made a defense. 5. Should we eliminate laws any time there is overzealous enforcement of them? 6. Abraham Lincoln: The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. that's pretty much what I think of it. what is your defense of such hate mongering? Steve On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Jesper Langballe apparently wrote, Of course Lars Hedegaard shouldn't have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth instead seems to be that they make do with killing daughters (so-called honour killings) -- and moreover turn a blind eye to rapes by uncles. He was therefore prosecuted under a Danish law that provides, Whoever publicly ... issues a ... communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years. Because the law does not allow truth as a defense, he pleaded guilty; you can read his statementhttp://europenews.dk/en/node/38110 here. This happened last month, but I just learned of it, and thought it important to note it. The person about whose statement Langballe was speaking - Lars Hedegaard, president of the Danish Free Press Society - is facing criminal trial
Re: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims
This wasn't an academic study with empirical conclusions. On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: 3. But say that it’s false, and that this behavior isn’t more common among Muslims than among others. How can we possibly know that, if it’s a crime to challenge this orthodoxy? Social science facts, like other scientific facts, can only be established through a process of argument and counterargument. A study that shows there’s no problem among Muslims is credible only if we know that people are free to challenge the study, make rival claims, design studies that are aimed to show the contrary, and so on. If it’s a crime to argue one position, then we can never know with any confidence that the opposite position is correct. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ The aim of education must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, see in the service to the community their highest life achievement. Albert Einstein ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims
so, in short, you have no defense of hate mongering other than we allow it under our constitution. On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: 1. Well, recall that Langballe was simply saying “there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth instead seems to be that they make do with killing daughters (so-called honour killings) –- and moreover turn a blind eye to rapes by uncles.” He seems to think that this is a fact. Literally, it probably is a fact: There presumably are such Muslims. In context, it probably is a suggestion that this behavior is especially prevalent among Muslims, for reasons related to their being Muslims. Langballe also thinks this that a fact. I don’t know whether it is, but the problem is that Langballe isn’t even allowed to raise the defense that it is a fact. 2. If it is a fact, it strikes me as entirely proper to report it, and see what can be done about it. You can call it a “slur” if you like, but how can we deal with problems in the Muslim community if people get prosecuted for describing such problems? 3. But say that it’s false, and that this behavior isn’t more common among Muslims than among others. How can we possibly know that, if it’s a crime to challenge this orthodoxy? Social science facts, like other scientific facts, can only be established through a process of argument and counterargument. A study that shows there’s no problem among Muslims is credible only if we know that people are free to challenge the study, make rival claims, design studies that are aimed to show the contrary, and so on. If it’s a crime to argue one position, then we can never know with any confidence that the opposite position is correct. 4. I’m not sure how a defense of “reasonable interpretation” would help Langballe. Truth appears to be no defense under Danish law; the question is whether “a group of persons are ... insulted or denigrated due to their ... religion.” The prosecutor seems to think that the statement, even given the “there are” language, is insulting or denigrating towards Muslims as a religious group, because it suggests that there’s something wrong about modern Islam (at least as practiced by many in Denmark). Sounds to me like Langballe is indeed guilty under Danish law. 5. As to “overzealous enforcement,” the trouble is that I have no idea what properly zealous enforcement would be. On the one hand, the argument seems to be that Langballe is “hate mongering.” On the other hand, the argument is that his speech is nonetheless constitutionally protected. In the past, when this issue has come up, I’ve asked Prof. Jamar how he would define what viewpoints people could go to prison for, and what viewpoints people should remain free to express. As I recall, I never got an answer. But I’d be delighted to hear one now. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:08 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims 1. Isn't it easy to avoid the hate speech by avoiding the calumny of all Muslims and just report the facts? 2. What defense do you have for such race/religion/ethnic slurs? 3. Truth is what here - that all Muslims do in fact engage in honor killings? Or that just Muslims do? Or that there is something special about Islam that makes this happen? Or what? 4. The defense of reasonable interpretation of the remarks or generous interpretation (treating his remarks as if he really weren't slandering all Muslims and pushing race-hatred) could easily be made a defense. 5. Should we eliminate laws any time there is overzealous enforcement of them? 6. Abraham Lincoln: The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. that's pretty much what I think of it. what is your defense of such hate mongering? Steve On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: Jesper Langballe apparently wrote, “Of course Lars Hedegaard shouldn’t have said that there are Muslim fathers who rape their daughters when the truth instead seems to be that they make do with killing daughters (so-called honour killings) –- and moreover turn a blind eye to rapes by uncles.” He was therefore prosecuted under a Danish law that provides, “Whoever publicly ... issues a ... communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years.” Because the law does not allow truth as a defense, he pleaded guilty; you can read his statement
Bans on insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] religious groups, and social science
So? First, the law doesn't have an exception for academic studies with empirical conclusions. But, second, and more important, the progress of social science -- and other science -- doesn't consist solely of academic studies. How do social scientists even figure out that some problem is worth investigating? Often because people report on problems that they perceive to be present, based on anecdotal accounts. (That's what was going on in this instance, as I understand it; the speakers were working off reports that they had heard of sexual abuse within the Muslim community.) If such reporting risks criminal punishment, that important input to the social science process will be shut off. What's more, say there is a study. At that point, it will often be reported on, and challenged, sometimes immediately by other social scientists but often by laypeople, legislators, interested activists, and so on. These challenges will likewise often rely on anecdotal evidence, summaries by people who have informally studied the community or the crime, and so on. Without such challenges, other social scientists might not know that the first study might be flawed, and might be worth conducting otherwise. Again, if such challenges risk criminal punishment, that important input to the social science process will be shut off. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:34 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims This wasn't an academic study with empirical conclusions. On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: 3. But say that it's false, and that this behavior isn't more common among Muslims than among others. How can we possibly know that, if it's a crime to challenge this orthodoxy? Social science facts, like other scientific facts, can only be established through a process of argument and counterargument. A study that shows there's no problem among Muslims is credible only if we know that people are free to challenge the study, make rival claims, design studies that are aimed to show the contrary, and so on. If it's a crime to argue one position, then we can never know with any confidence that the opposite position is correct. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ The aim of education must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, see in the service to the community their highest life achievement. Albert Einstein ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: FW: Danish MP guilty of the crime of insult[ing] or denigrat[ing] Muslims
Question: How many Danes does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: I can't answer that question; it would be a crime. [Name withheld to prevent extradition] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
