I have always been of the mind that all speech should be free. One should always feel free to express the worst in us, out loud, in public, where the speech can be tested against community standards and either be excoriated or accepted.
There are two events, recently published in The New York Times, that force me to wonder if there is a reason why some expressions should never be made public.
The first example concerns the murder trial of Ronell Wilson -- who allegedly shot two undercover detectives in the back of the head -- when he was arrested, handwritten scraps of a Rap song were found in his pocket describing the killings before they happened.
The scraps of paper were formally introduced as evidence yesterday, between testimony from the city’s chief medical examiner and the investigating officers. Alongside such standard evidence, rap lyrics have come up repeatedly in the first two weeks of the trial, most notably in testimony from a federal agent who recited a gang member’s violent, profanity-laden verses for the jury in a halting monotone. Prosecutors are making similar arguments across the country this year, in courtrooms in Albany, Oroville, Calif., College Station, Tex., and Gretna, La. Set to drumbeats or scrawled in notebooks, the rhymes of minor stars, aspiring producers and rank amateurs are being accepted as evidence of criminal acts, intent and mind-set.Is this the sort of "free society" we want in America where people can express their most wicked desires in print and in song and then act upon that darkness in a real life, terminal, act? Is there a point when -- like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- we are required to criminalize speech that directly endangers the welfare of the rest of us? Fantasy or not, should we allow bragging about killing someone in song? If so, should we be later surprised if that speech is irrevocably acted upon in the least interest of the best of us? Does a song lyric promise the mindset of a killer in premeditation the same way a spoken, direct, threat can warrant a death sentence -- or is all creative expression held harmless in the goal of us? The second incredible example of hate speech finding purchase in a public arena happened yesterday in Tehran during "The International Conference on Review of the Holocaust."
In a speech opening the two-day conference, Rasoul Mousavi, head of the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Institute for Political and International Studies, which organized the event, said it was an opportunity for scholars to discuss the subject “away from Western taboos and the restriction imposed on them in Europe.” The foreign ministry had said that 67 foreign researchers from 30 countries were scheduled to take part. Among those speaking today are David Duke, the American white-supremacist politician and former Ku Klux Klan leader, and Georges Thiel, a French writer who has been prosecuted in France over his denials of the Holocaust. Mr. Duke’s remarks late this afternoon are expected to assert that no gas chambers or extermination camps were actually built during the war, on the ground that killing Jews that way would have been much too bothersome and expensive when the Nazis could have used much simpler methods, according to an advance summary of his speech published by the institute.Should we condemn the Iran conference for wallowing in the dangerous fantasy of rewriting history to serve an unveiled future want to "Wipe Israel Off The Map" -- or should we celebrate the fact we know, on-the-record, precisely the rationale and strategy for death and destruction and act on it now to prevent anyone else from getting shot in the back of the head?
David- Sure speech can have as heavy effect as cement block and guns, but who is going to regulate it. The same government that lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that led to deaths of many innocent soldiers who follwed the "logic" attached to these words.
Hi fred --
If we are not a nation of laws, then what are we? A nation of notions?
I am beginning to think unfettered "free speech" has become a misnomer for unchecked threats and unregulated hate and unfortunate discrimination.
Hi David- Natural laws, are laws. Man made laws are notions; some more natural than others.
i agree. Freedom of speech sounds like a good idea, ontil one looks deeper and sees that it is just another idea or notion. Inciting war through lies is not my idea of freedom that one should be given.
The former is not 'Hate Speech' - it may not be nice but I couldn't class it as Hate Speech.
Louis Farrakhan is banned from Britain because of his Hate Speech - yet is free to roam in the USA. Does that make the US a haven for such people?
And Hate is a relative term. I'm sure Bin Laden is thought to be a nice guy by some. The terms can also be dressed up in other emotive ways to - as mentioned above - wage war in the name of Good/God/A Better World.
My view? If you want free speech then you accept it universally. You cannot have it yet deny the right to others.
fred --
How, exactly are you defining "natural law" in contrast to laws made by men? The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines "natural law" as:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm
Further research indicates "natural law" is deeply tied to religion and is commonly known as "God's Law" so I am really confused why you think that sort of "law" is better than the non-denominational sort that figures, at least philosophically in America, that we are a nation of laws and not men.
Another thought.
Pre-glasnost the Soviet Regime was condemned and deemed suspicious because they were silent.
So if they say what we do not want to hear then we protest, and if they do not say it then we do not know what they are thinking so we view them from a hostile standpoint.
If "hate speech" is freely permissible, then the individuals who hold the views not accepted by society can be challenged and corrected before hateful thoughts becomes acts of hatred.
On the other hand, "hate speech" can become indoctrinization when spouted by "authority figures" (ie. teachers, religious leaders, famous people, politicians, parents, etc.) to people at an early age which could be very dangerous.
So I don't think the answer is clear cut.
David- i define natural law as what the wild animals, plants, and minerals follow. Domesticated animals and humans modify this and follow man made laws which have natural law that has been altered by man. Some of the latter i find attractive and some of it i feel is detrimental to me and others. Others do also, this is why man made laws change. It used to be a law that one could own slaves. The Greeks we got a lot of our philosophy from condoned this as did the Romans we got much of our law system from did too. So did the "founding fathers," then people had a different notion and the man made law was changed. i'm not saying natural law is better, just that we should deeply consider man made laws, especially when they appear to go against nature. i don't believe natural law is tied to religion, as the plants and animals and minerals that follow it are not religious in the common sense, (even if research states otherwise). i do believe in the law of "karma" which i believe exists within the life span, and perhaps before and after. i don't believe one centaralized law will ever make everyone content. Perhaps we need more decentralized laws so people could gravitate to areas where laws more suitable to them exist. That 2% of the population owns 50% of the wealth, and 50% own 1% seems a great violation of natural law to me, call it what you will.
mark!
Your comment once again creates many other wonderings.
It's interesting that those Rap lyrics in the first image in this article, if sent to the President or any other government official, would've been seen as a terroristic threat and the author would be put in jail as an enemy combatant wondering about if the writ of habeas corpus still applied or not.
If, however, those lyrics are found after the fact of an identical act resulting in death as precisely described by those lyrics, the author's intent is not to kill or to conspire or to terrorize but to merely express an opinion? The law, and its angles and quiet frames of discontent make not only for confusion, but moral ineptitude when applied inequally.
Farrakhan's hatred is well known and I suppose you could either say the USA is a haven for free speech or, more cynically, that there are those privileged few who always tempt distress and unrest and incivility yet get a pass while less powerful people remain in jail for lesser offenses.
Aren’t Bin Laden’s words about the USA, no matter the audience or adversary, always "hate speech?" There are those who are inspired by hate speech and the eradication of others. I'm not sure if the angle on hating changes if you're a follower or not.
Here's an interesting article wondering about Free Speech in America. Not all speech is free. There are limits and conditions set down to protect the common welfare and here are some of the ideas discussed in that piece:
mark!
I see you posed a follow-up question! I will answer you as soon as I switch computers. My battery is dying...
"It’s interesting that those Rap lyrics in the first image in this article, if sent to the President or any other government official, would’ve been seen as a terroristic threat and the author would be put in jail as an enemy combatant"
The question is why?
Why would the Govt do that? Is that response not massively disproportionate to some writing from a lone individual? Is that not indicating more the Govt's extreme stance than the words of one?
And if he sent it to you and you complained the response would be "If he kills you, let us know".
In the above it is the Govt that is wrong, very wrong.
mark --
Your point about Russia is telling. They repressed freedom of religion during the Cold War years -- yet churches still sprung up and people still sought out gathering together to pray during that time. The masses need their shared salves.
So I guess that shows when the truth is crushed to the ground, it shall rise again, even if the government policy is to fall in line and not to free think.
A S --
If you get a clear-cut answer, let us know!
:grin:
fred --
You may not feel "natural law" is tied to religion, but if you research you see it most certainly is tied to God's moral will.
It's important we use the shared understanding -- and common defintions -- to communicate with each other because if we make things up as we go along, creating our own meanings, then no one will ever understand someone else's point.
Your post is saying that when people say Hate that should they be allowed.
My point about Russia was that when they say nothing they are equally seen as being wrong.
Bring this down to a personal level:
Would you rather fall out with someone and they yell at you, or fall out and they give you the silent treatment?
I'd guess you would prefer the former because at least you know what they are thinking, why they are thinking it and you can attempt to get a discussion going no matter how wrong you may think they are.
mark!
I agree with you! There is a great paranoia in this country when it comes to public figures and their required idolization versus their nasty vulnerability to being shot at and assassinated by lone individuals.
We have a government set up that ensures a clean and line of power if anything should happen to the president. That is what makes this country so unique. You can knock off the top guy, but you can't throw us into a political tizzy because we have the next person lined up and ready to lead us.
We have gone away from that a bit since the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy where the president becomes lionized as a leader of a nation of children and, without their fatherly stewardship, we are all lost at sea. That kind of Rock Star As President is dangerous because it goes against our founder’s belief that the role of the president is no more important or powerful than that of any other position of judicial or congressional leadership.
So now we have elected paranoid kings who rule us with iron fists encased in iron gloves and we're all the more bloody and bruised for it. We must be careful how and what we say and when and where we say it. There are bloggers who get visits from the FBI for certain things they say about the president on their blogs. If you write a threatening letter and send it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue you better expect a knock on your door to follow.
I agree that those Rap lyrics should be just as threatening to you and to me, but the reality is there are those in America who get a hotter hand by birthright and a bigger stick for beating down others when it comes to retribution and restriction of free speech.
Hi mark!
I think I took your point and expanded on it -- perhaps I wasn't being clear after my switch from MacBook Pro 17” to simple, lonesome -- but cute -- MacBook.
:grin:
Let me try again…
Russian = silence = a rising rabble despite the silence. They treat you with silence and repression, but freedom still finds a way to ring in the empty wake.
Yes, I personally prefer dialogue over stunned or purposeful silence but just because someone freezes me out doesn't mean I won't respond and rise a response on my own much in the same way religion refused the silence in Russia.
We know bloggers who get no comments -- or turn comments off -- who still have a lot to say to fill the perceived silence!
:grin:
Oh, and mark -- if I'm still not getting your point, fire away!
:wink:
I don't like hate speech, but in some ways it is good to know when someone is spouting off so that we can take that into consideration when dealing with the person (or nation).
Here's what Iran's leader is saying:
If we enter into negotiations with Iran, at least we know where they are coming from. Just as it was good for voters to know David Duke's racists positions, it is good for everyone to know that Iran's leadership is anti-semetic and is possibly threatening to end Israel's existence.
If we kept everything quiet, people might think that Iran comes to the negotiating table with clean hand, when in fact, they come filled with hate.
I misspelled "anti-semitic."
Chris!
Let me ask you this, then… let’s say… for some reason… there is a "Mad Blogger" out there who has decided -- for whatever reason he does not like you -- and day after day he calls for your murder and the murder of those from you love on his blog.
He’s smart enough not to use the word murder. He might what he wants to happen in just fuzzy enough language that he isn't breaking laws or slandering you -- but his intent is clear.
Do you support that blog as an example of free speech?
Would you try to shut him down?
Would you report him to anyone to seek protection for you and those close to you?
Hi David,
While I wouldn't like to have someone saying bad things about me, I'd rather have them saying them than come out of the blue and blindside me. The good thing about letting people talk is that we can determine what they are thinking and make our decisions accordingly.
A person who smiles, is polite, friendly, and even picks up the tab at the shushi bar isn't doing anyone any favors if he (or she) puts Polonium-210 in my food.
At least, if someone says they wish me ill, I can keep an eye out for them. I can also make a police report -- to get it on the record -- just in case -- even if there isn't enough evidence to allow the police to act.
Ah, but Chris, those who call for murder rarely carry out the act. It is the misguided that are influenced by the hate speech that do the dirty deed.
You will be gone; your original accuser will be free, but satisfied, because the deed was done by an unknown, misbegotten, follower who was never on the danger radar until it was too late.
Now go run this scenario by your wife and see what she says.
:mrgreen:
Here's an interesting news bit:
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/12_12-26/TOP
Is anyone bothered by the veneration of the "Thug Life" Tupac Shakur lived in song and lyric and that ultimately identified his death?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur
http://www.2pac2k.de/tattoos.html
Dave --
The lyrics in question in today's article were in the shooters pocket and allegedly written in by own hand. The prosecution is trying to make the case that setting down murderous thoughts on paper, and then acting on them, makes the crime (of creating art?) premeditated murder.
There have been teen suicides blamed on the lyrics of rock music and some claim some songs, if played backwards, inspire young people to kill because the brain can subconsciously decode those songs' encoded urgings:
http://www.av1611.org/rock.html
Hi David,
Sounds like a premeditated act to me because it shows that it was on the guy's mind.
Of course, for every guy like that one, there are tons (at least in this area) who seem to do worse and get out after a couple of years so they can continue their crime sprees where they left off.
Hi Chris --
Right, but his defense team is saying it was a song about a bullet in the head, but not in the undercover detectives' head so it can't be premeditated because there wasn't a specific enough pondering.
There are lots of thugs out there who do get off and who do a lot more harm coming out of prison than they did to get in there in the first place.
Hi David,
I guess the question of premeditation will be up to the jury. Will they think it's just the musical stylings of an innocent man who was mistakenly picked up by the police?
Or, will they see it as a glimpse into the mind of a killer hatching a plot that came to fruition on that fateful day when the defendant caused his art to become reality?
I haven't watched Mel Gibson's Apocalypto yet, but people have mentioned that it seems that Gibson's movies seem to be focused on violence and gore. I wouldn't have given it much thought, but after his encounter with the police earlier this year, it makes me wonder if Gibson might be battling some issues within the confines of his head.
What we know about people usually comes from their actions because we can't read people's thoughts. A defendant writing something, then allegedly doing the same thing or something substantially similar goes a long way toward being a confession or indication of premeditation because it reveals what has been rattling around in ones mind.
I agree, Dave, that people are responsible for their own actions -- and inaction -- but as feeble minds become elected leaders and where any glint of a wild thought becomes a negative influence, we are quickly slipping down a hole of degradation and accusation that will only take us lower.
Peer pressure is a valuable commodity in the "fitting in" of a life into society and so imitation -- and copying the successes and failures -- replaces real experience.
There is a great responsibility to act responsibly so if you are imitated -- even unwittingly -- you bring even more light into the world instead of darkness.
Good luck on your results tonight!
When the feeble minded are too weak to be elected on their own, they can be appointed into positions of power when their elders retire.
Of course, when all of the people running the government are lock-step in support of each other, votes don't really matter.
Chris --
I agree the "written confession lyric" is awfully interesting though, prejudicially on my part, the handwriting in the image looks like a woman's and not a man's.
Gibson is an interesting director. He always deals with suffering and the idea of sacrifice for a higher cause as in Apocalypto:
His work is bloody and deadly -- but that is how this world works! Look all around you and you see suffering and sacrifice and blood and death everywhere.
Chris!
I love those quotes and story! I'm sure blood and death -- and the Mel Gibson big screen version -- will soon follow!
Hi David,
I was thinking the same thing about the handwriting. But, he could have dictated it to a woman who was acting as his stenographer.
Yes, it's all very interesting! The fact he had those lyrics in his pocket right after he shot the undercover dectectives goes to state of mind and motive no matter how those words got on the paper!
Hi David,
I bet in a couple of years, there will be some sort of movie about the political dynasties where the parents select their children to take over the reigns of power and even the most uninspiring of people wins by virtue of daddy's or mommy's name recognition.
And, knowing the hardball politics people play in certain parts, if the people don't vote the way they're supposed to vote, there might just be a Mel Gibson movie to be made. ;)
Chris! Oh, I hope there is such a movie -- a Michael Moore Documentary Even! -- about royal political dynasties!
It's so fascinating that James Baker can steal Florida in 2000 for W. but W. won't take his advice when it comes to getting unstuck in Iraq. There's a BIG MOVIE in there somewhere!
If someone was to make such a movie from a non-partisan angle and infuse it with comedy, it'd be a huge hit.
I'm still keeping my eyes out for Al Gore's Glaciers Gone Wild movie to premier on Current TV.
Chris --
I don't know if it is possible to make a non-partisan movie about such a partisan person! Everything he's done has been one sided and punishing of the other.
I love Al Gore. Oh, if he were only our president. We'd be in such better shape as a nation now and I guarantee you we would not be so severely divided.
David- Can we share this understanding with others, from someone proving his validity with not just words, but also his sharing of his innovative music with the many people who consider him, "the master," with good reason, in relation to music.
All a musician can do is to get closer to the sources of nature, and so feel that he is in communion with the natural laws.
Author: John Coltrane
fred --
Music interpretation is not the same as word interpretation.
When you invoke an established phrase like "natural law" that has been around since Aristotle and we then research that phrase to determine its meaning and we discover its definition is quite the opposite of what you claim, we get confused and cranky when you then reply with, "Well, it doesn't mean that, it means what I want it to mean."
Mark wrote, "Louis Farrakhan is banned from Britain because of his Hate Speech - yet is free to roam in the USA."
Louis Farrakhan was banned not because of so-called hate speech but because of his views on the state of Israel. The ban was applied because some prominent Zionists in the UK successfully pressured that government.
The press has for many years labled Farrakhan as racist, anti-Semitic and anti-everything based on out of context statements and fabrications.
The following are some in context text and video statements that set the record straight:
Farrakhan's response to the 911 attacks:
http://www.noi.org/statements/transcript_010916.htm
Farrakhan on the "War on Terrorism" and Iraq:
http://www.finalcall.com/pressconference/
Farrakhan's press conference in Cuba:
http://www.finalcall.com/media/cuba/
Farrakhan's speech to Atlanta Black Clergy:
http://www.finalcall.com/webcast/Atlanta-Clergy-2005