Our Awful Situation

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

Posted by Charlie Kilo on June 11th, 2008

The following article on freedom of speech is interesting but wrong on several fronts:

A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean’s magazine, the nation’s leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.

“It’s free speech!” yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.

The author is incorrect. A publication may be protected by the constitution but slander or libelous statements that are false will land you in court. In America you can sue for anything.

Comments

{

}

Our Awful Situation

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

Comments

Search

Recent Posts

Sites of Interest

Archives

Categories