My free speech, your hate speech

[quintessentone]

Explained from one point of view, certainly. Obviously Mr Mengestu disagrees.

But where do you stand?

Do you think both Israeli and Palestinian authors have a right to express their views freely, even when those views are hostile to the other party? Even when the views expressed can mean life or death to someone?

Do you believe cultural boycotts are legitimate? Would you have attended a literary festival or a rock concert in apartheid South Africa? 

Are you proposing tit-for-tat boycotts? Or do you think there ought to be a ban on boycotts?

I look forward (I think we all look forward) to learning your views.

I noticed you did not offer your view on this topic, so maybe if you could do that, I might have a basis here for discussion with you. Otherwise, the cultural boycotts' reasons have already been explained.

[andy06shake]

The line in the sand is where lawful opinion becomes unlawful threats or incitement to violence...

[quintessentone]

The line in the sand is where lawful opinion becomes unlawful threats or incitement to violence...

Yes, but also denial of others' truths, such as genocide as happened in WWII, is considered serious enough that some countries have made the denial of it a criminal act. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_o...ust_denial

[andy06shake]

Yes, but also denial of others' truths, such as genocide as happened in WWII, is considered serious enough that some countries have made the denial of it a criminal act. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_o...ust_denial

It's the reason for the denial that's problematic, Quint.

And it's always to punt, promote, and incite hatred against targeted groups.

Particularly Jews in the case of Holocaust denial.

And that kind of form of denial is closely linked to the revival of dangerous extremist ideologies.

Hence, the illegality of the matter.

Obviously, that varies from nation to nation, depending on the law of the land...

[quintessentone]

It's the reason for the denial that's problematic, Quint.

And it's always to punt, promote, and incite hatred against targeted groups.

Particularly Jews in the case of Holocaust denial.

And that kind of form of denial is closely linked to the revival of dangerous extremist ideologies.

Hence, the illegality of the matter.

Obviously, that varies from nation to nation, depending on the law of the land...

Or pushing political narratives which try to shift the world view or acceptance of crimes against humanity as being justified to perhaps security/political/religious ideologies which may or may not be extremist, but have other underlying reasons that need to be protected (i.e. security reasons, maintaining control and power) at all costs depending on the agenda/program/end game.

A very controversial and complex issue, for sure, and the subjective opinions of authors need to be examined as to what is their motivation/reason to write about a controversial and touchy topic in the first place.

[andy06shake]

Or pushing political narratives which try to shift the world view to perhaps security/political/religious ideologies which may or may not be extremist, but have other underlying reasons that need to be protected (i.e. security reasons, maintaining control and power) at all costs depending on the agenda/program/end game.

A very controversial and complex issue, for sure, and the subjective opinions of authors need to be examined as to what is their motivation/reason to write about a controversial and touchy topic in the first place.

It is a very controversial and complex issue indeed.

But that does not mean people can be allowed to deny facts.

So as to punt racial hatred and fear, or to promote their own warped and twisted political agendas.

There have to be laws in place to prevent that from happening.

Otherwise, the loudest racist half-wit in the room gets a soapbox to stand on and scream whatever lies and abuse the audience likes the taste of. 

We knock them off those, we don't help prop them up. 

Just my opinion, all the same.

[Astyanax]

I noticed you did not offer your view on this topic.

Well spotted. The fact is, I'm not at all sure what the correct ethical position should be. I have strong feelings on the subject of artistic freedom of expression, but my feelings should not dictate my views – or should they?

I thought it might clarify my own thinking to see what emerges from the discussion. I certainly shall state what I think at some point, but not just yet. If you want to reserve your own opinions also, by all means do so.

[andy06shake]

Well spotted. The fact is, I'm not at all sure what the correct ethical position should be. I have strong feelings on the subject of artistic freedom of expression, but my feelings should not dictate my views – or should they?

I thought it might clarify my own thinking to see what emerges from the discussion. I certainly shall state what I think at some point, but not just yet. If you want to reserve your own opinions also, by all means do so.

I think the ethical position depends on intent if that makes any sense.

But it's a quagmire nonetheless...

[Astyanax]

The line in the sand is where lawful opinion becomes unlawful threats or incitement to violence...

You may want to reconsider the word 'lawful' in that sentence. In fact, you did so when you added
 

Obviously, that varies from nation to nation, depending on the law of the land...

Or (to paraphrase): not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong everywhere and in every case.

Knowing you, I don't think you would argue that legality trumps ethics, or morals, or what have you. To take a literary example, the man who stabbed and half blinded Salman Rushdie was acting in accordance with what he thought of as the applicable law – a fatwa from his Imam. The State of New York begged to differ, and put Mr Mattar in jail for 25 years. Who was right? A legalist would say the law of the state where the act occurred should apply; but any religious person would find that argument hard to swallow if the law went against some tenet of their own religion. An appeal to law won't do the job in and of itself.

[andy06shake]

You may want to reconsider the word 'lawful' in that sentence. In fact, you did so when you added
 

Or (to paraphrase): not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong everywhere and in every case.

Knowing you, I don't think you would argue that legality trumps ethics, or morals, or what have you. To take a literary example, the man who stabbed and half blinded Salman Rushdie was acting in accordance with what he thought of as the applicable law – a fatwa from his Imam. The State of New York begged to differ, and put Mr Mattar in jail for 25 years. Who was right? A legalist would say the law of the state where the act occurred should apply; but any religious person would find that argument hard to swallow if the law went against some tenet of their own religion. An appeal to law won't do the job in and of itself.

 

You may want to reconsider the word 'lawful' in that sentence.

Where have I heard that line before? 
 

A legalist would say the law of the state where the act occurred should apply.

I would say that also, if im picking sides.  

The kicker is when he arrived in prison, it's more of the law of the jungle he would have to follow...

Put it this way Astyanax, take away the law of the land, and it all falls apart.

What you are left with is anarchy and survival of the fittest...

A lot of laws have historical roots in religious traditions, which i suppose is also rather apt.

As to what "should" apply, again i think the situation dictates the morality, at least 9 times out of 10...