[source]

Freedom of Speech

Author unknown: "shlemazl" of Toronto, "CanadaZionist Pro-Harper NeoCon Professional Jew without bad habits, except occasional sex."

I ADVOCATE a pragmatic approach. As long as what person A says poses no danger to others he should be able to say it freely.

In my view this means that it should be applied differently in different circumstances.

Take Adolf Hitler in 1920s Germany. His rhetoric posed danger to others. His freedom should have been restricted. What about 21st century Canada? Perhaps not.

Little doubt that Salman Hossain would love to do what Hitler did or something pretty damn close. Does he pose real danger in Canada? Only if he or his pals would physically attack people. Therefore the job of the law enforcement agencies is to assess whether there is a realistic risk of Salman acting on his words. I have to say that it does make me feel uncomfortable knowing that he is so close to us.

Take another example. Holocaust denier, a racist, an anti-Semite, liar and history falsifier David Irving from the UK. Again, in 21st century England he poses no realistic risk and should be allowed to say whatever he wants. Incidentally this is exactly what Deborah Lipstadt stated on multiple occasions. As it happens it was David Irving, the self-styled fighter for the freedom of speach, who sued Deborah for stating the obvious. Clearly he thinks only him [sic] and other Nazis sympathizers deserve freedom of speach.

One more test case. How about Muslim leaders or clerics who state that "Anyone over the age of 18 in Israel is a valid target."? Or simply state that Jews should be exterminated - like all members of Hamas, Hezbollah and prominent Imams? These people are in a position of authority and are posing clear actual danger. Terrorist acts have been committed across the world to implement such guidance. Therefore Islamic leaders or clerics expressing hateful views should be isolated and their ability to spread poisnous propaganda should be constraint.

Incidentally I apply the same principle to democracy. It's O'K to have communist, Islamo-fascist and neo-nazi parties as long as there is no realistic chance of them succeeding. That applies to countries like Canada, US and Britain. Hamas should have never been given the right to participate in elections and the same goes for the National Socialist Party of Germany.

P.S. Comment moderation had to be enabled to prevent spamming. And NO, this has nothing to do with Kevron's "freedom of speech". I support Kevron's right to visit the bathroom. Just not on the floor and not in my house.

See also: On reasons for not debating at Normblog.

An anguished philosopher's dilemma: Should I debate a Holocaust denier?| philosopher's blog has now deleted all comments but they live on, in Cyberspace | The, uh, debate continues | and continues |AND THE DEBATE GOES ON...

 

David Irving comments:

VERY INTERESTING once again - the mindset of the traditional enemies of Free Speech. First, note that they usually cloak themselves in anonymity. Next, they seem ignorant of everything, and especially of the judge-confirmed liar Deborah Lipstadt (remember that Mr Justice Gray confirmed in his judgment that she had erred in stating that I stole the Goebbels Diaries from the Moscow KGB archives, that I consorted with Hezbollah, and on other allegations; for the price of a 25¢ phone call to me she could have avoided those petty lies).
   I sued Lipstadt for having published her lies: she published, and took the risk; I did not issue an advance injunction to stop her stating something.
   Lipstadt on the other hand bent over backwards -- NOT a welcome sight -- to intimidate St Martin's Press not to honour its contract to publish my acclaimed Goebbels biography (in itself a tort in law). Moreover my readers will recall how she cut off her own nose (in fact something of an improvement) to prevent C-Span from broadcasting nationwide a television record of my talk in Atlanta, Georgia, and to punish the restaurant's owner [On which piece of bigotry, see her paid OpEd in the New York Sun: "Why I said No to C-Span"].