I have been asked by some of my European friends, how is it
that hate speech against Jews is called anti-Semitic, hate speech against
African Americans is called racism, but the hateful film about Mohammed that
caused the violence in the Arab world is called by Americans “free
speech”.
They are all hate speech. However, anti Semitic literature
and racial slurs are considered free speech, too, in the US, even if those who utter it are verbally condemned by
their fellow citizens. Most of the world
does not understand the US concept of free speech because it is quite different
than what the rest of the world assumes it is .
To understand the US
version, our European friends should separate public and political expression of
personal or official opinion from government action. The key is: what does the government do when
hate is uttered. In some countries, the
speaker is thrown into jail. In others,
students are forbidden to wear any form of religious preference…a head scarf, a
star of David, a cross. In the US, you
are not prosecuted by any government for wearing any of these symbols of
religious belief. Such expression is
protected by the US Constitution. Even
if you have a swastika on your T shirt, you may get dirty looks, but you will
not go to jail for it. What people say when accusing someone
of uttering hate, such as calling
someone anti Semitic or a gay basher is tolerated even if saying so is offensive to others.
There is a limit to free speech: The US
Supreme Court’s ultimate test is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is not
free speech. People panic and get hurt
as they rush to the exits. Rallying a group to demonstrate violently…setting
cars on fire, smashing windows..etc..will also lead to prosecution by the government.
If police determine a demonstration is
violating the law, such as blocking a street without a permit, that is against
the law and if the group refuses to obey police orders to stop such actions,
they too are subject to arrest and prosecution. Such happened in anti Wall
Street demonstrations in Denver this summer.
When the demonstrators failed to move their tents and barriers from the
street, they were arrested and spent the night in jail or got a citation and
were released.
Another kind of limit
has been placed into law recently: if the motivation of a person to commit a
crime such as vandalism, arson or assault or even murder is hate
against a religion, sexual preference, or ethnic or racial person or group, the crime is considered a federal one and
penalties are far greater than just the
usual ones for those crimes. If a mosque is firebombed, that is investigated as a hate crime. If a synagogue is firebombed, it is also
investigated as a hate crime. If a gay person is attacked by someone, and that
attacker either says something or has indicated somewhere else that they have
hate against gays, they will also be subject to investigation for a hate crimes.
If they are found guilty, the penalties will be more severe than if they were
not motivated by hate.
Here is why the film
that insulted Mohammed, put together by someone who appears to be a Coptic
Christian in California, did not result in his arrest. He was a prior convicted fraudster and might
be imprisoned for violating terms of his release from prison time later, but
imprisonment would not be due to the
film. One could say he shouted fire, and
someone in the Middle East resorted to
violence against US embassies, but there were those in the Middle East who also
translated and used the hateful words as a way to incite violent protests, too. That the violence resulted because of third
party use of the film muddies the water of guilt and the violence that resulted was not committed
in the US or subject to US laws, so the US Constitution could not be invoked. In
fact, few ever saw the film until someone posted a trailer on the internet.
Regardless of that,
as US officials said, peaceful protests are justified but violent protests should not be tolerated
and the killers of the US ambassador and
3 other US officials will be brought to justice. It appears the Libyans are prepared to be the
ones to do it. What US officials, both Hillary Clinton and
Pres. Obama have said firmly is that the
film does not represent the US policies and they roundly condemned the film as disgusting and hateful. As an
individual, I am invoking my right to free speech to condemn it, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment