We have been following the steady decline of free speech in the West (here and here and here) and we have another interesting case on criminal charges for uttering prohibited thoughts. Germany has long made it a crime to deny the holocaust. Now, controversial British clergyman Richard Williamson has started a trial in Germany on Friday for his denial that the Nazis had systematically murdered millions of Jews.
Williamson, 70, was fined 12,000 euros (16,000 dollars) for comments made on a television interview during a 2008 visit to Germany. In the interview, he alleged that the Nazi gas chambers are a myth and “only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews” had been killed by the Nazis.
He caused a controversy for Pope Benedict XVI, who repealed his excommunication of Williamson.
There is no question that Germany has tried through this law to prevent the resurgence of Nazi propaganda and lies. However, the best way to fight fascism is to allow free speech, not to censor prohibited thoughts and utterances. In this case, Williamson says that he was assured that his interview would only run in Sweden, which allows free speech on the issue. Despite our personal revulsion with such accounts, it is important for civil libertarians to stand with free speech. This trial should not be over the historical fact but free speech. Williamson has a right to speak his mind as to his view of history while the rest of us have a right to denounce those views.
For the full story, click here
I would argue that protecting free speech IS protecting human dignity. Is the human psyche so delicate that it needs the state to intercede on its behalf to determine what the individual can and cannot hear? Is humanity that weak?
It seems kind to argue for human dignity, but any system that denies free speech denies basic human dignity.
The free speech of the United States, at least as it is written in the Constitution, IS superior to other systems in that our free speech is UNABRIDGED.
The First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
LIMITED FREE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH. It is something else entirely.
AY,
No, just using an ironic statement to make a point – if you considered in a request and made good on it I would be partially responsible by my own argument – talk about hoist on your own petard…
WrldVoyagr:
“Yours” in the sense of the position you defending.
If that was an offer Slarti, I cannot accept. His defense sucked and now most likely he will too.
I think that the problem with free speech in the US has nothing to do with what is or isn’t allowed (it should all be allowed) – it has to do with a lack of responsibility. People are not held accountable for the reasonably foreseeable results of their speech. Fox peddles propaganda as news every day but denies any responsibility for what that does to our public discourse. Bill O’Reilly talked about ‘Tiller the baby killer’ repeatedly for years – but will never see any kind of punishment for Dr. Tiller’s murder. Denying the Holocaust is your right – but if it every happens again you should be put to death! Will someone rid me of this troublesome priest?
@Mespo: What leads you to think I am German and am defending “my” system? I am merely pointing out that this is not a clear black/white good/bad issue on free-speech, but that the laws that permit prosecution of the bishop in Germany have a historical framework. Frankly I personally prefer a complete free-speech system, but I will not judge that one society is more or less free because of it.
What Holicaust? I had family die in Germany for being a person that the Nazi’s did not like. Racial Purification I think it was called.
WrldVoyagr:
While I appreciate the difference in historical context between the two charters, that, in and of itself, doesn’t tell the whole story. Germanic reluctance to accept free speech pre-dates the Holocaust.
No one seriously argues that political free speech was permitted under Prussian rule (religious free speech was remarkably abundant thanks in part to Luther’s legacy), so it might be best to view it in the context of the Weimar Republic. The Weimar did ostensibly permit free expression of thought, but the most telling feature was its outright censorship of movies (then one of the most popular means of mass expression) by the infamous Film Assessment Headquarters. Further deterioration of the right occurred with the passage of the ‘Gesetz zur Bewahrung der Jugend vor Schund- und Schmutzschriften’ (Law for the Protection of Youth from Trash and Filth Writings).
With the rise of Nazi rule, the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, served as national censor for all manner of expression. Punishments for violation ran the gamut from deportation to death.
Following the War, allied forces continued the censorship of free speech that was eventually relaxed under the new Constitution in West Germany. East Germany tightened restrictions which continued until reunification.
You are correct that the Federal Republic places a premium on human dignity, but is seems more than coincidence that it follows the same restrictive interpretation of free expression that has saddled Germany for decades before its founding.
As a side note, you are certainly correct that the main stream media gave Bush et scoundrels a free pass. You will note that thousands of other outlets here such as the blosphere, movies, and the expressions by everyday citizens did not. Would that grassroots “uprising” have been possible in Germany with its restrictions against offensive materials embodied in the concept of Volksverhetzung? I think the answer is unclear, and the basis for my concern about your system.
One should avoid the easy decision to equate systems of government or to refuse to make normative judgments. The choices are simply that a given system is poorer, equal to, or better than another in providing for human happiness and dignity. Neither of us find our systems equal. The remaining choices form the basis for our discussion. Otherwise, why would you comment and me respond?
@Mespo: This is not about Prussian attitudes on authority. The example on insulting cops applies equally to insults between normal citizens (if their human dignity is encroached upon). Just as the Fathers of the Bill of Rights were greatly influenced by their experiences under the British, leading them to give free-speech high importance, the German constitution in post-World War II was greatly influenced by the atrocities of the holocaust, and therefore placing human dignity as the utmost right. But these differences in interpretation of citizen’s rights should not lead us to say one is better than the other. Free-speech (and therefore also free-press) is very much alive in Germany and Western Europe, and open criticism of the government is a daily affair. In fact, Europeans were always surprised at the LACK of criticism from the mainstream US press leveled against the Bush administration in the early years of the Iraq war.
I agree though that government officials and the like should be more accepting of such “uncomfortable” speech.
WrldVoyagr:
“As Bruno pointed out, Europe has a more nuanced view of free-speech. Limitations are not there to stifle unwelcome views, but to protect other rights that are deemed more important.
(…)
However, in the German Constitution, this is superseded by the right to human dignity.
(…)
In the recent US court cases that allowed motorists to insult cops and get away with it on free-speech grounds would be unthinkable in Germany, due to the higher emphasis accorded to human dignity (in this case for the cop to be free of insulting language and gestures).”
**************
Forgive me for saying, but I think your example points up the historic Germanic/Prussian attitude of strict adherence to authority so absent in this Country — a few conservative wackos notwithstanding. “Human dignity” thus serving as the pretext, in my view. It is not a frivolous comment that the Germans are ever-awaiting the man on horseback – history having continually rendered its verdict on this aphorism since 1870.
Our Bill of Rights is premised on suspicion of governmental authority, and its attendant power creep. The issue is not why the cross-Atlantic sentiments differ. Rather, the issue is which most successfully serves human happiness and to use your word, human dignity. I like our track record.
I’ll take a few insults directed to citizens/government officials/religious entities as opposed to encroachment on their free thoughts. The latter hurts infinitely more — individually and collectively.
As Bruno pointed out, Europe has a more nuanced view of free-speech. Limitations are not there to stifle unwelcome views, but to protect other rights that are deemed more important. In the US Constitution, the right to free-speech is accorded the highest importance. However, in the German Constitution, this is superseded by the right to human dignity. It is this human dignity of the holocaust victims that is protected by the limitation of free-speech by the deniers. An American-centric view on free-speech should not be used as the global litmus-test.
Each democratic country has their own constitution and views on various rights. In the recent US court cases that allowed motorists to insult cops and get away with it on free-speech grounds would be unthinkable in Germany, due to the higher emphasis accorded to human dignity (in this case for the cop to be free of insulting language and gestures). Raise your finger at cop, and risk a hefty fine. That’s the law, and accept that not all countries have a cookie-cutter version of US law.
I agree with Tootie. We need more openness and debate, not less. Usually, the powers that be – government/media – do whatever they can to stop the debate. I’ve never seen a debate on the JFK assassination, whether it was a conspiracy or not, but every time someone writes a book that there was no conspiracy, he gets TV interviews (Bugliosi and Posner for example). I’d like to see a “Oswald was the lone gunman” vs “There was a conspiracy and more shooters” debate. Hash it out and see who has the stronger argument.
I’d like to see this Bishop make his case for 200,000 – 300,000 (still an awful lot of people, IMO, and horrific) vs someone who puts forth the proof for the officially stated number of 6 million. How was either number arrived at? Why is that not a worthy question?
I’d like to see a debate over proof of the official 9/11 story vs the controlled demolition of World Trade Center towers building. I’d like to see the science presented from both sides.
Why is any historical or scientific issue treated like religion, that you have to accept on faith? That makes no sense. Strikes me as likely dishonest and manipulative.
If you want to practice free speech in Germany you should be willing to pay the price – in this case, $16,000. Otherwise, stay here where you can deny the holocaust, the powers of the federal government, the citizenship of the current president or any other goofy idea.
Which is more enlightening to the uninformed? Or is there no responsibility as far as misinforming the uninformed? Wasn’t it the big lie that led to Germany’s original problem?
“Don’t criticize government because that leads to overthrow. Don’t criticize Islam because that leads to rioting. Don’t criticize liberals because that leads to hate. Don’t criticize Obama because that leads to racism. Don’t criticize Jews because that leads to antisemitism.
It’s nuts and there is no end to this form of tyranny over the mind and assault on freedom of conscience.”
*****************
My goodness, Tootie, you’re sounding absolutely liberal. I bet you are likewise revulsed by that wacko John Ashcroft’s decision to cover up the breasts on statuary behind him while he regaled us with that soaring melody, “Let the Eagle Soar.” You may actually be evolving and prove to yourself the bona fides of that anti-creationist doctrine. Yippee!
I used to believe it ought to be illegal to yell fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded room, theater, and etc.
But I’m not from that school of thought anymore. I hear people tell me you don’t have a right to yell such a thing. Well, yes you do, the Constitution says so. If nothing happens, you will be hounded out of civil society and theater owners will ban you from their establishments. If something happens and someone dies you ought to rightly pay the price for it in a court of law.
To stop speech ahead of time seems to be prior restraint. Anyone can decide to be offended and allege to threaten violence because someone words incited them to it. It’s an excuse to be evil.
This whole business of muzzling speech because someone might be offended and incite someone else to violence is becoming more and more dangerous by the day. It doesn’t distinguish between telling someone to do an immoral act and merely saying something offensive. To tell someone to go kill or rob or bomb is incitement. To say you don’t like someone or believe something about them is NOT incitement. And it is nutty to think so.
It puts all offensive language (thoughts) into the likely-to-be-inciteful category. That is insane.
Don’t criticize government because that leads to overthrow. Don’t criticize Islam because that leads to rioting. Don’t criticize liberals because that leads to hate. Don’t criticize Obama because that leads to racism. Don’t criticize Jews because that leads to antisemitism.
It’s nuts and there is no end to this form of tyranny over the mind and assault on freedom of conscience.
Jimm,
To do this is to deny Free Speech and a form of Police State.
Bruno,
I know your post was directed to the Professor, but I thought I’d chime in with my thoughts.
First, mind manipulation is EXACTLY what free speech protects the populace from. A free person should be able to look at BOTH sides of any issue — even as one a horrible as this — to determine FOR THEMSELVES the validity (or stupidity) of the naysayers, their research, and their sources.
If we prosecute anyone for holding PARTICULAR beliefs, no matter how “weird,” we provide open opportunity for those who would manipulate us, the citizenry, to achieve their own ends, to use the same SYSTEM. For if you give the who would deceive the means to do so, they will seize it. History, even very contemporary history, has shown us that.
Lastly, I would argue that ANY limits on free speech are, on a base level, against the “real basic liberties of people,” as you state in your post. Free speech is a CONDITION of liberty. I don’t see it as an American or a French interpretation issue. If you don’t have free speech, in my opinion, you simply don’t have liberty. You may still have a society of some form or another, but to say the populace therein has liberty in their daily life, when speech is restricted in ANY WAY, is fundamentally dishonest. Compromised liberty is is not liberty…it’s something else entirely.
By the way, I’ve just been to Paris, but your country is extraordinarily beautiful — the sites, the food, the people. I would love to return one day to see Provence.
Dear Jonathan,
I’ve been a regular reader of your blog for sometime now, and I’m a big fan (yes you do have fans in this “frog eating surrender monkeys” country).
Many people in Europe do support free speech as a matter of principle, but are also well aware of the devastating effectiveness of mind manipulation. Restrictions on free speech as we know them in Germany or France do not necessarily run counter to the real basic liberties of the people. I’ve been pondering his issue for sometime, and I can’t make up my mind about the best policy. May I just suggest that the american view is not necessarily the only good one.
From la Roque-Alric in Provence, with thankful admiration,
Bruno
I’m with Jon here. Freedom of speech must mean freedom for ALL speech, not just that which upholds the prevailing viewpoint. Anything less, and we risk becoming a police state.
Free speech my ass! I don’t blame Germany.