Skip to main content

View Diary: "Hate Speech" is Not the Same as "Free Speech" (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's itself one-sided (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R, sviscusi

    the burden of removing the hijab is not equivalent to the burden of removing a crucifix.   And it's not a protection against religious intolerance, it's the the force of the state to say that the line between public and private religious expression must exist on Western secular terms only.  If anything, it's an embodiment of religious intolerance, and under the guise of "elevating" the status of Muslim women (by having them dress like Catherine Deneuve), they've instead made it less likely they'd work outside the home.  And the point wasn't that it's a problem with laws against hate speech, but the larger problem of using laws to assert legal control over expression of conscience or belief, as an invitation to unintended consequences.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 12:52:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Loge ... France is a Western secular country. (0+ / 0-)

      The laws in France reflect that, so it's kinda hard to blame them for expressing things in those terms.

      I have to remove my crash helmet when I go into the bank, whether I want to or not.

      France is a democracy, and laws can be made and changed freely.

      Women in France are free to wear the clothes they choose, including wearing none at all in many places. This conflicts, I agree, with some traditions, in some Islamic communities where women are not free to make choices, and wearing certain clothing is part of that.

      France will not change it's laws to accommodate that which the French consider to be discriminatory, and religious beliefs play no role in that because they have a separation that has teeth.

      Some Muslims may indeed consider this to be an imposition, but many do not.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 01:25:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  France changed its laws (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, T100R

        to be MORE discriminatory, but that's a bit of a side issue besides querying the "why can't you foolish Americans be more like Europe" premise.  The U.S. has a doctrine of "reasonable accommodation" that works well in the U.S. and to a lesser extent pre-Sarkozy Frahnse.  If a job requires a woman not to wear a hijab, it goes; otherwise, no.  The bike helmet analogy is utterly trivializing.  Separation of church and state is a two edged sword - both the establishment clause and free exercise clauses have to work together to promote individual liberty.  France can call what it's doing separating church and state with teeth, but it's a pretext for anti-immigrant nativism.  (And in a country of roughly 65 million, you can find many people believing anything.)

        Similarly, allowing the hateful expression of hateful ideas at least provides something of a safety valve.  Often, the justification for banning speech is that it would lead to violence in the future, but what if violence is the consequences of allowing the hateful ideas to bubble over?  I don't think it's possible to answer this question in all cases, but in the case of anti-gay speech, attitudes around the country have changed with no banning of speech; and by the time there would be enough of a political consensus that such a law could pass even if it were Constitutional, it'd be already unnecessary.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 02:06:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site