Is freedom of speech alive anywhere?

[WordWhiz]

A while ago, I posted a story about a man who is serving 5 years in jail in Germany for the simple act of expressing an unpopular opinion: namely, that the Holocaust did not occur. Canada and America were complicit in this denial of basic human rights.

In the original thread, some argued that this wasn't a big deal because Holocaust-denial laws were sui generis. I pointed out that this was not the case at all. Numerous countries in Europe either had or were contemplating laws prohibiting the expression of ideas that incited racial animosity, insulted particular racial groups, etc.

Looks like India is on the bandwagon as well: an Indian court is hearing testimony on whether Liz Hurley's wedding "insulted Hindu tradition," a crime under 295 A of the Indian Penal Code, which makes it an offence punishable by three years in jail to "outrage" any group's religion with "deliberate and malicious intention." (Story on yahoo)

The U.S. is fortunately still "behind the curve" on this issue, thank God. We still have relatively free speech here, but I wonder for how much longer. It appears to me that free speech is another crazy libertarian idea from last century that will gradually be whittled away in the name of fairness, equality, justice, social cooperation, etc.

I think that sometime in my lifetime, we'll see a world in which the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is as relevant as the whole thing about limited government and enumerated powers.

[neverforgetlol]

Somalia

[Metric]

You have to remember that the 1st amendment was written in a time before modern communication and media, when it took weeks to send a simple message from state to state. Obviously they didn't mean that "the people" should have the right to free speech in the way now interpreted by free speech nuts and other crazies.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to remember that the 1st amendment was written in a time before modern communication and media, when it took weeks to send a simple message from state to state. Obviously they didn't mean that "the people" should have the right to free speech in the way now interpreted by free speech nuts and other crazies.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're being sarcastic, I missed it.

If you're not being sarcastic, I agree, we've always been at war with Eurasia.

[xorbie]

I take issue with the idea that it's somehow the liberal idealogues that will be the ones to erase free speech in the US.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I take issue with the idea that it's somehow the liberal idealogues that will be the ones to erase free speech in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make who it is? Won't it be people who want to control other people?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take issue with the idea that it's somehow the liberal idealogues that will be the ones to erase free speech in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make who it is? Won't it be people who want to control other people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm just saying let's identify where the threat currently is.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I take issue with the idea that it's somehow the liberal idealogues that will be the ones to erase free speech in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever do you mean? Just take a look at what raging liberal ideologue Robert Bork has to say on the matter:

"Liberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating, legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality. Censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical. Yet it should be obvious, to all but dogmatic First Amendment absolutists, that people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free."

But yeah, it's liberals who are the greatest threat to free speech in America.

[iron81]

After that quote, my hatred of Ronald Reagan has reached new heights. For those who don't know, Bork was nominated for the Supreme Court by Reagan but was rejected by the Democratic Senate.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever do you mean? Just take a look at what raging liberal ideologue Robert Bork has to say on the matter:

"Liberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating, legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality. Censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical. Yet it should be obvious, to all but dogmatic First Amendment absolutists, that people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free."

But yeah, it's liberals who are the greatest threat to free speech in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

It's stuff like this that makes me really dislike Reason...