In the wake of the terrorist attack on/assassination of/murder of Dr. George Tiller and the shootings at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, much light has been shed on the comments of certain ultra-conservative groups and commentators over recent years. The point of contention, it appears, is to what extent does (or should) free speech exist in our society, and how much responsibility do these commentators bear for the actions of people who take the final step of matching their words to horrific events? It is a question that I admit I don’t have a clear answer to, but hope that writing about it will help clarify my thoughts somewhat, for my own benefit if nothing else.
Overall, I tend to be on the more liberal side of freedom of speech, believing that the price of living in a free society is occasionally putting up with the ramblings of intolerant lunatics. Just as they are free to say pretty much whatever they want, I am free to ignore them. Besides, it’ll often give me something to write about on a slow news day.
However there have definitely been instances where a line has been crossed and individuals or organizations have abused freedom of speech to incite violence against others, with tragic consequences. In our own past – at Nuremburg and the ICTR, we have prosecuted members of the press who egged on the slaughter during the Holocaust and Rwandan Genocide. So to what extent do these people bear a measure of responsibility for the actions of their followers? While I’m not comparing Fox News to RTLM, you have to think that if you have people going on the air saying stuff like “Tiller the Baby Killer” over and over again (completely ignoring the fact that the man is performing a procedure fully compliant with local laws) some nut job is eventually going to take you seriously.
So where is the legal line in the massive grey area between an off colour joke told at a party and a station like Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles-Collines? Does it matter if the statements are made in private groups, or broadcast to a potential audience of millions? After all this, I’m still not sure.
It wasn’t funny the first time
3 hours ago
1 comments:
There are already laws against incitement. Any limits beyond those laws represent too much restriction on speech that would hinder people of all political stripes.
As an example, there were some highly publicized statements by Americans that the world would be a better place if G.W. Bush were dead. I did not take these statements as a suggestion to assasinate the president, but some lunatic could have.
In other words, don't believe that such laws will only apply to those people with whom you disapprove.
Post a Comment