Harry Taylor was convicted of “causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress,” and sentenced to six months in jail (suspended for two years), 100 hours of community service, and 250 pounds in costs; he was also barred from “carrying religiously offensive material in a public place.” A few details on the leaflets, from Asian News International/DailyIndia.com, which has the most comprehensive coverage I’ve found (though there’s also a similar story in the Independent (UK) and other British papers):
Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue.In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.”
Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told in another: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.” …
He had adapted newspaper and magazine cartoons and added captions of his own — one made a crude joke on a picture of a woman kneeling in front of a priest.
But some of his cartoons went way beyond exercising freedom of expression, prosecutor Neville Biddle said.
One image showed a pig excreting sausages with insults to Islam, and others linked Muslims to attacks on airports….
An appalling restriction on freedom of speech; I realize English free speech rules aren’t the same as ours, but cases such as this remind me why I like our free speech rules much better. I should note also that this certainly wasn’t a content-neutral prohibition on leafleting in particular places (e.g., a ban on leaving any unsolicited material in prayer rooms) — the conviction was based on the content and viewpoint of the speech, and the “anti-social behaviour order” applied to carrying “religiously offensive material” in any “public place.”
Thanks to Josh Mize for the pointer. If anyone has the text of the leaflets, I’d love to see it and link to it, so people can better grasp exactly what the case was about.
Hieronymous says:
Alas! If only he’d done this in Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park all this would have been averted.
April 25, 2010, 12:49 amRandy says:
The leaflets are appalling, in my opinion, and especially so in the context of an airport prayer room. I can understand that in the US this would probably be legal, but it’s deliberately offensive — and I’m not even religious!
I suppose in Britain being obnoxious is still against the law, unlike the US. But then, they started the whole politeness thing with afternoon tea.
Having said that, the one about the virgins is actually pretty funny.
April 25, 2010, 1:02 am1040 says:
of all the truths he speaks, this is probably the one that got him in hot water. never mess with the meat packing industry.
April 25, 2010, 1:26 amDNJ says:
I think if this is appealed, the conviction may be vulnerable. The English courts have taken a relatively speech protective line in some recent decisions. See, e.g., Guardian News and Media Ltd & Ors, Re HM Treasury v Ahmed & Ors [2010] UKSC 1; British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350.
April 25, 2010, 1:26 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Being ‘subjects’, the British never have been free – they just had permission.
April 25, 2010, 1:43 amJones says:
@ Randy: “The leaflets are appalling, in my opinion, and especially so in the context of an airport prayer room.” The leaflets did not incite violence but they are appalling enough to you to be both humorous and yet warrant condemnation, huh? Which side are on you on that of free speech or suppression?
April 25, 2010, 2:12 amMalvolio says:
The problems here at home sometimes make me forget we live in the freest country on Earth. Count your blessing.
What did the black kid get for Christmas? My bike.
What do all battered women have in common? They just don’t listen.
What’s a Jewish dilemma? Free pork.
Funny, yes (imho). Appalling, yeah, pretty much. Not illegal, at least not here.
April 25, 2010, 3:20 amKirk Lazarus says:
Business as usual in the Soviet Eunion, folks.
April 25, 2010, 4:21 amLeroy Washington says:
Yeah? Try going to work and saying “Mexicans and Niggers are lazy and stupid.”
You will be crushed.
April 25, 2010, 6:41 amDoc Merlin says:
Fired in both countries, but only jailed in one of the two.
April 25, 2010, 7:02 amTomG says:
Wow, does anyone else ever yearn for a truly judgementless society? Naw, guess not …
April 25, 2010, 8:18 amVoo Doo says:
So?
What does it matter that something is offensive? That is the whole purpose of free speech laws – to protect you when you want to say something controversial or offensive. Freedom of speech is not freedom from offense.
April 25, 2010, 8:31 amJoseph S says:
@DNJ – the cases you’re talking about are defamation cases – a slightly different matter.
Norward v DPP [2002] EWHC (Admin) 1564 – Racist signs
Hammond v DPP [2004] EWHC (Admin) 69; 168 JP 601 – homophobic sign
are far more typical. But note Percy v DPP [2002] Crim LR 835, where burning a US flag was tolerable because prosecution was disproportionate to the offence caused, however. The judges were informed by the fact that the burning would not have been illegal were it in the US.
April 25, 2010, 9:00 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Randy, thanks for saying it.
Oh, no, I disagree there. That’s another bait-and-switch folks like to do. If I complain about garbage like these posters, it’s expressed to me that if I can’t criticize the government we’ll have tyranny.
Every toddler has to learn that “I can” doesn’t equate to “I should”. Every teenager is told that with freedom comes responsibility. Some folks never get that, I guess.
April 25, 2010, 9:14 amTomG says:
judging intent rather than basing offenses on material outcomes – why is this needed, and
April 25, 2010, 9:18 amcan it ever be fair?
Joseph S says:
There is actually a requirement in the Public Order Act 1986 that the offensive material is ‘public’ – but that simply means that it is seen by a member of the public, and it need not be seen by anyone other than the policeman. I think the sign in Norward was in a private house but visible from outside, for example.
April 25, 2010, 9:36 amtroll_dc2 says:
Would the same result occur in Canada?
April 25, 2010, 9:37 amAnderson says:
Yes, another reason to appreciate the First Amendment (and its incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment).
April 25, 2010, 9:44 amRichard Nieporent says:
Thank you Randy for your concern and sensitivity. I am sure when they start beheading all of the infidels you will be at the back of the line. Oh wait…
April 25, 2010, 9:47 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Richard, that is really kind of a low blow. Randy has to support offensive crap in order not to be targeted for being gay? WOW.
April 25, 2010, 9:56 amRichard Nieporent says:
No Randy, like the rest of us, should be supporting free speech.
April 25, 2010, 10:00 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
But you singled him out, Richard. You’re equating “gay” with offensive garbage. I don’t know how Randy feels about that, but I wouldn’t like it one little bit.
April 25, 2010, 10:01 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Why don’t you tell me I should support this kind of thing or I’ll end up in a burkha.
April 25, 2010, 10:02 amRichard Nieporent says:
No I didn’t single him out. He made a post that I commented on. By the way Laura(southernxyl, he doesn’t need you to speak for him. I believe Randy is capable of defending himself. If he was offended I am sure he will let me know.
April 25, 2010, 10:06 amMilhouse says:
It’s more than that. The first amendment, by its own terms, doesn’t create a right but rather protects a right that already existed in 1788, and therefore presumably belonged to all people, or at least to all Englishmen. The right, therefore, must also exist in the UK, even in the absence of laws protecting it, and convictions like this violate it.
April 25, 2010, 10:06 amRichard Nieporent says:
You should support this kind of thing or will end end up in a burkha.
April 25, 2010, 10:09 amColin says:
Did I miss a comment? I don’t see any comment by Randy opposing free speech. Is this based just on the fact that he called the pamphlets appalling and offensive?
April 25, 2010, 10:10 amRichard Nieporent says:
Calling them appalling and offensive was a gratuitous comment. Of course they were offensive. If they weren’t he would not have been convicted.
April 25, 2010, 10:14 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Colin, Randy doesn’t have the right to be offended by anything, because his being gay offends other people. Because he is gay, his commenting on anything he finds apalling or offensive is gratuitous.
Richard, if I have to support blasphemous garbage about Jesus Christ in order to dress like a human being in your world, I don’t want to live in it.
April 25, 2010, 10:21 amfrankcross says:
Richard, are you trying to suppress Randy’s speech? On the grounds it was gratuitous? In which case, wasn’t it gratuitous for you to say it was gratuitous?
I’m all for free speech, including free speech condemning the content of other’s free speech. That seems consistent.
April 25, 2010, 10:29 amRichard Nieporent says:
Sigh. It appears that you just don’t understand the concept of free speech. Of course you don’t have to support “blasphemous garbage” about Jesus Christ (or any other religious figure). In fact, if it offends you, you have the right and duty to speak up and let the person know how offended you are. What you don’t have a right to do (so far at least in the US) is to censor the offensive speech.
April 25, 2010, 10:33 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
Richard, where have Randy or I talked about censoring?
April 25, 2010, 10:38 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
…And weren’t you just complaining about Randy speaking up and saying the material was offensive?
April 25, 2010, 10:39 amShelbyC says:
Geez folks, Randy hasn’t said a damn thing against free speech, all he did was criticize the speech and get a bunch of people to prove Laura’s point. Laura and Randy are perfectly free to criticize the speech and promote civility instead. People should wait until they actually support criminal penalties for such speech. That said, what is happening in England wrt free speech, especially in this case, is simply appalling, and another reminder of why the US is just flat-out better.
April 25, 2010, 10:57 amRichard Nieporent says:
Reread what he said.
The leaflets are appalling, in my opinion, and especially so in the context of an airport prayer room. I can understand that in the US this would probably be legal, but it’s deliberately offensive — and I’m not even religious!
In my opinion that is not a strong defense of free speech. The context of EV’s post was not whether Harry Taylor said something offensive – that was a given – but whether he should have been punished for what he said.
April 25, 2010, 11:10 ampete says:
Sorry Shelby, but people like Richard are opposed to free speech. He is trying to censor Randy and Laura by criticizing them, just like how they are opposed to free speech by criticizing something as offensive, how you are trying to censor Richard by criticizing him, and now how I am censoring you by pointing all this out. Isn’t that clear?
And Randy, that all out of virgins one is pretty old. It was one of the Danish Muhammed cartoons.
April 25, 2010, 11:14 amDennis N says:
And not just in the UK.
Hearing set in St Cloud anti-Islam cartoon incident
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20100424/NEWS01/104230048/Hearing-set-in-anti-Islam-cartoon-incident
This case is different, however, in that the charge is for posting the materials on “fixtures.” Apparently he stuck them to phone poles and bus shelters or something similar.
April 25, 2010, 11:26 amA Criminal says:
Sometimes AKA “Watsoned”, as per James Watson’s treatment after his making a scientifically uncontroversial speculation about a subject in which he’s a renowned expert.
A Jew, a Muslim and a Christian walk into a bar, and the bartender says, “What is this, some kind of joke?”
April 25, 2010, 11:30 amSuperSkeptic says:
I’m not sure we have “airport prayer rooms,” but just go ahead and try to say anything remotely (1) loud (2) about muslims or terrorism (3) regarding the word(s) ‘bomb’ or ‘bombs’ or ‘bombing’ – you will not be arrested for “speech” but rather more likely something enablingly vague like “disorderly conduct.” They stop planes in mid-air and turn them around when someone jokes about bombs. Airports, airplanes, air-anythings are conspicuously NOT free speech zones – even here in the US folks. wake up.
April 25, 2010, 11:59 amtroll_dc2 says:
SuperSkeptic, this is the lede in the story that EV linked:
Are you okay with that?
April 25, 2010, 12:34 pmSteveMG says:
I think it was Justice Powell who pointed out that there’s a difference between the right to do something and the right thing to do.
This person posting these ugly flyers (were it the US) has the near absolute right (within obvious limits like copyright, et cetera) to have and post ugly views.
And I have the right to call them ugly posters and ugly views.
To repeat using a more extreme example: I believe that people have the right to espouse the lynching of black Americans and Jews. But those views are odious and disgusting.
I hope the difference is obvious.
April 25, 2010, 12:48 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Absolutely not. I am whole-heartedly against “Anti-Social Behaviour Order[s].”
April 25, 2010, 1:00 pmyankee says:
Absolutely. But it’s not freedom from criticism either. This guy should have been allowed to distribute his leaflets without being arrested,* and Randy should be allowed to say nasty things about the leaflets.
* Though the airport’s owner could have asked him to stop, since the airport is privately owned.
April 25, 2010, 1:05 pmyankee says:
Well, assuming it doesn’t constitute incitement, solicitation, or conspiracy, which it might in a particular case.
April 25, 2010, 1:11 pmSteveMG says:
Well, assuming it doesn’t constitute incitement, solicitation, or conspiracy, which it might in a particular case.
Yes, but the view itself – just like the view of the anti-religious poster – is protected in the US.
Back to the topic: the anti-religious poster wasn’t interested in having a civil discussion on religion. He was interested in sticking his tongue out.
Fine. I fully support that right.
But don’t be upset if people return the favor.
April 25, 2010, 1:21 pmNick056 says:
Richard,
Your odes to tyranny here are quite offensive, but fortunately the Internet can absorb the noise pollution. But you provide a nice study about how certain practices and ideals — Free Speech! — can be juiced up with a nasty, vicious misanthrophy and used to tell an audience that they ought to support hateful words and hateful people, or else they dishonor the principles of a free country.
April 25, 2010, 1:22 pmSgtDad says:
The Anti-Federalists were right. Parliament was — and is — as big a threat to liberty as the crown.
April 25, 2010, 1:31 pmBama 1L says:
I hope you realize how brilliant this is. The UK Supreme Court will doubtless begin citing Scalia et al. as authorities on the ancient rights of Englishmen.
April 25, 2010, 1:54 pmVoo Doo says:
Correct. You should be 100% responsible for your speech. If you say something stupid I should have the right to mock you. If I offend someone, they should have the right to not associate with me. Freedom of speech of implies responsibility. If you limit speech to only acceptable speech (say non-offensive speech) you are *reducing* the responsibility of those speaking.
April 25, 2010, 2:06 pmSteveMG says:
Don’t cite foreign law and rulings.
That’s in case Justices Ginsburg or Breyer are reading this.
If you are, in the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall to CJ Burger as they passed each other in the hall, “How’s it hanging?”
April 25, 2010, 2:20 pmJaneSmith says:
For some variety of ‘free’ that involves incarcerating more people than any other country in the world.
April 25, 2010, 2:25 pmRichard Nieporent says:
Did you ever read the saying misattributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”? Do you understand what it means? You ought to support the right to say it, not the hateful words themselves. If the response from some of the people on this thread is any indication of how the average person views free speech, I can see why the concept of free speech is constantly under attack.
April 25, 2010, 2:43 pmHieronymous says:
Clearly some members of the British Government will have to join this unfortunate fellow in jail. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/25/world/AP-EU-Pope-Britain.html?_r=1&hp
April 25, 2010, 2:55 pmAnderson says:
What is a “Richard Nieporent,” and what relation if any does it have to David Nieporent? David is conservative, but not irrationally so.
April 25, 2010, 3:11 pmRichard Nieporent says:
I believe it is an animal of the species Nieporęt found only in the east central portion of Poland.
Should I conclude from your comment that in your opinion Liberals don’t believe in free speech?
April 25, 2010, 3:24 pmNathanM says:
There is no offence in Canada of “causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress” nor is there any provision in Canadian law equivalent to the UK’s anti-social behaviour orders. So no, the same result would not occur in Canada.
It is conceivable that the pamphlets might be hate speech but from the newspaper description that seems highly unlikely. Prosecutions for the wilful incitement of hatred require the consent of the federal Attorney General and are fairly uncommon.
Canada still has a criminal law prohibiting blasphemous libel on the books, and this conduct could to prosecuted under that law. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been charged with blasphemous libel since the passage of the Charter in 1982. It seems to me to be inconceivable that a court would not strike down the blasphemous libel law, but unless someone is charged under the section one cannot know for certain.
April 25, 2010, 3:31 pmColin says:
You seem all fired up and ready to excoriate someone for attacking free speech. No one on this thread has done that, though, so far as I’ve seen. I think you’re just trying to pick a fight–in other words, trolling. Let’s all stipulate that the right to free speech includes pointlessly rude speech, though, so that you don’t feel persecuted.
April 25, 2010, 4:05 pmHey Skipper says:
Prosecutions for Imams making statements “causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress” starting in 1, 2, 3 …
April 25, 2010, 4:13 pmMark Field says:
Them’s fightin’ words, you know. David swears he’s a libertarian. Of course, to sheep other sheep no doubt look very different.
April 25, 2010, 4:44 pmCB says:
I think the leaflets are funny, especially the no nails glue. Pretty crazy that whoever found them didn’t just throw them in the trash…but I guess atheists trying to provoke people all the time finally got the reaction they wanted.
April 25, 2010, 5:37 pmNick056 says:
Richard, yes, I understand the distinction. But I don’t really think that when you came out swinging against Randy, that distinction was at all your point. Your point was beating up on someone for saying the pamphlets were offensive without first explaining, for the benefit of those playing along at home, that censorship is truly bad.
And then you did the same to Laura when she challenged you. Ironically, you told her to shut up because Randy can speak for himself — from the guy who loves open discourse. It was all thuggish, and it leads me to believe that while you will exalt the virtues of free speech — right down repeating the classic formulation in its defense — you approve of yelling about people who don’t say exactly what you want, telling their friends and defenders to shut up, and looking for people to demonstrate that they are truly goodthinkers. When you couple that chilling practice with a surface worshipfulness of free speech, you get a thug who’s using a slogan about freedom to shout people down on an Internet message board.
I take exception to that.
April 25, 2010, 6:16 pmFub says:
Injunctions against certain lawful behaviors, including otherwise lawful speech and clothing color, do exist in California.
April 25, 2010, 6:23 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Amazing that someone could be punished for insulting another person’s imaginary friend.
It also amazes me that religious people are so easily offended, and need to be protected from offense by the state. After all, religious people purportedly have the eternal and omnipotent God(s) on their side, an all-powerful being that presumably can wreak all sorts of everlasting, awful vengeance on blasphemers, heretics, leafleters, etc.
Maybe the offended religious folks…. lack confidence? Just grasping for a theory here.
April 25, 2010, 6:42 pmleo marvin says:
My commitment to someone’s right to say something obnoxious doesn’t preclude my wishing he’d decide voluntarily not to say it. Typically the only acceptable way of persuading him to refrain is social opprobrium. If too few of us are willing to exert that kind of pressure, those who value the aesthetic more than the liberty will erode the latter in their misguided attempts to improve the former.
April 25, 2010, 6:54 pmleo marvin says:
David’s obviously right wing, but I think he’s proven enough willingness to call out authoritarian conservatives to deserve another title if he wants one. As long as self-described libertarians are part of the right wing, I see no reason to deny him that one.
April 25, 2010, 7:22 pmRichard Nieporent says:
In other words we agree with each other.
April 25, 2010, 7:25 pmJames Smith João Pessoa, Brazil says:
If he had left religious leaflets at an atheist’s meeting, that would have been fine. Religion has had a free ride on everything from taxes to suppressing freedom of speech for far to long. All atheists should unite to bring political and economic power to bear and become a force that cannot be ignored.
Personally, I am tired of living in a repressive theocracy.
April 25, 2010, 8:01 pmAnderson says:
Ah, I’ve figured it out — “Richard Nieporent” is Old High Swabic for “troll.”
April 25, 2010, 8:06 pmCB says:
Actually, I missed the one about the woman kneeling in front of the priest. I actually find that to be offensive…more because I don’t want to have pornography shoved in front of my face at any time. But my prior comment still holds.
April 25, 2010, 9:00 pmRandy says:
Well, you go away for a day, and all hell breaks loose! You guys are having a party without inviting me? I’m shocked.
Anyhoo….I don’t really understand why anyone would think that I’m against free speech. Never said it or implied it anywhere. Sure, I thought the letters were appalling, especially in the context of a chapel. I don’t have the right to believe that? And if I believe something is bad, I am a priori in favor of censorship? Who would have guessed.
I thought they were in bad taste and pretty offensive. Get it? Those are my opinions, but only mine. I really don’t care what anyone else thinks about them — maybe they love them, maybe they hate them. Who cares? But I never said anyone should be jailed or stopped from putting them out.
In other words, one can support free speech and still think the speech was in bad form.
“The leaflets did not incite violence but they are appalling enough to you to be both humorous and yet warrant condemnation, huh? Which side are on you on that of free speech or suppression?”
Think of me as Buddhist koan — what is the sound of one hand clapping? If you can answer that, you will have solved the riddle that is Randy. Yes, one can find something appalling AND funny, all at the same time. Having just seen Alice in Wonderland, I am convinced that these are two impossible things that I have thought of before breakfast. Only five more to go!
April 25, 2010, 9:10 pmSteven says:
Joseph, it IS legal to burn a US flag in the USA. Many states have laws on the books, but the Supreme Court has consistently held them to be unconstitutional. As a result, there have been moves to amend the Constitution but so far they have gone nowhere.
Of course, you can’t burn someone else’s flag, and I’m sure there are places and times where it’s not a good idea.
Steven
April 26, 2010, 12:41 amChris Travers says:
Sort of. In English Common Law, free speech is a natural right but can be limited by the state when the state feels that it must limit bad tendencies caused by the resulting speech. License and prior restraint are other issues as well. It is generally accepted that the First Amendment went beyond what common law recognized as a natural right to free speech.
This didn’t really become an issue with the First Amendment though until the courts started struggling with incorporation doctrine. Consequently we saw very rapid developments in this area in the 20th century, from the bad tendencies test to, fifteen years later, abandoning this for the clear and present danger test, to eventually Yates and Brandenburg.
Free speech is not recognized to nearly the same extent in the UK as in the US. Honestly I credit our laws with the fact that inflammatory cartoons don’t spark workdwide riots when published here.
April 26, 2010, 12:43 amChris Travers says:
That’s an ambiguous statement if I ever saw one ;-)….
Does that mean I can’t steal a flag and burn it? Or that in the US, burning the Union Jack is illegal? ;-)
April 26, 2010, 12:44 amChris Travers says:
In addition to re-iterating EV’s point about liking US free speech standards better, I want to say something that I think sometimes gets left out of this sort of discussion.
Yes, these cartoons were in poor taste, and rather offensive. In general folks therefore may think that the would would be a better place of the cartoons were never put out in the prayer room. On this I disagree.
There’s a pervasive idea in our culture today (and indeed the world) that it’s a horrible thing to be offended, and that everyone has some sort of social right to be treated with respect and dignity at all times. I would argue that while we are better off when folks GENERALLY treat eachother with dignity and respect, this something that, if uniformly applied, would be harmful. Often times, I see folks getting upset about something and think we would be better off if folks had thicker skins.
One thing about American rules is that it encourages folks to grow thicker skins. While I agree with Laura that can does not equal should, I think it’s great that a certain percentage of people do things that most people definitely shouldn’t do.
April 26, 2010, 12:55 amRandy says:
IN regards to flag burning, one way the government could prohibit it is to require that all flags be licensed from the government. None of us ‘own’ a piece of software that we buy from Microsoft, but we merely license it. Maybe it would take an act of Congress or something, but we could have the government own the image of the flag and allow it to be licensed, but if you destroy it like burning it, you would be held liable.
Would that work, or are there problems I didn’t think of?
April 26, 2010, 1:24 amleo marvin says:
I couldn’t disagree more. As long as the right to be an obnoxious jerk is legally protected, I see no less harm in exercising it the first time than the thousandth.
Absolutely. Thicker skins all around. But in my observation what gets people to lighten up is hard-earned trust, not having their noses rubbed in their sensitivities.
April 26, 2010, 1:58 amreadery says:
Compared to the printing of the British Supreme Court decision branding the “chosen people” concept in Judaism a form of racism, this was just harmless fun. It didn’t use any public funds to do the printing. The British Supreme Court decision was a serious effort to insult a religion. In comparison, this wasn’t.
April 26, 2010, 2:26 amRicardo says:
That’s not an accurate account of the decision. The case involved a Jewish school that had an admissions policy that gave preference to children who were either a) Halakha Jews or b) were converts to Orthodox Judaism. The court ruled that taking into account the mother’s ethnic background as a Jew (under Halakha law) violates Britain’s statute on racial and ethnic discrimination. The court would have said the same of a Hindu school that gave preference to members of certain castes or of a German school that gave preference to children of “German blood.”
As with Employment Division v. Smith in the U.S., when secular law and religious tradition collide, secular law often takes precedence. Calling this a serious effort to offend religion is an argument that religion should get a special exemption from secular law. Ironically, that’s a principle those who tend to support the prosecution of this pamphleteer would probably sign on to very quickly.
April 26, 2010, 5:18 amJon says:
lol – support free speech, or else.
April 26, 2010, 5:44 amLegalRealist says:
I see something odd in everyone’s logic:
But this particular restriction wasn’t appalling. It was very extreme speech designed to offend, which did. It was restricted in a content-non-neutral way. But so what? This isn’t a case of inability to critique the government.
It seems to me, that in order to see this case as appalling, one must completely accept a slippery slope argument as to restrictions on speech. And that’s a well known logical fallacy. Germany also has content-non-neutral restrictions on speech, yet perhaps an even more active investigative press than we do.
April 26, 2010, 8:14 amRichard Nieporent says:
Or else you may get convicted for handing out “offensive” literature which some of us including EV think is “an appalling restriction on freedom of speech”. Also as Randy has made clear he is in favor of freedom of speech. So what is your problem?
April 26, 2010, 10:11 amRicardo says:
Who said anything about critiquing the government? That is just one of several justifications for freedom of speech. Time to re-read John Stuart Mill. Some ideas are inherently “extreme speech” that are arguably “designed to offend.” Salman Rushdie’s account of the story of the so-called “Satanic Verses” in his novel of the same name was based on the documented accounts of several early Arab historians. The idea that Mohammad may have at one point dictated verses of the Koran that were not authentic divine revelation is very distressing and offensive to some Muslims. So what? It’s an idea that adults of any religion ought to be able to discuss. As in many other cases, the threat to freedom of speech turns out not to come from the government but from private individuals who use violence and intimidation to silence people they do not like.
The justification for freedom of speech is that those ideas need to see the light of day to be vigorously debated. It’s through dialectic, debate and discussion that we get closer to the truth.
April 26, 2010, 10:18 amMartinned says:
Lest I run into similar difficulty as Randy, let me just start by emphasising that I agree with EV’s point in the OP: this prosecution seems out of bounds.
Just wondering: How’s that working out for ya? Does this story sound like it might have lead to vigorous debate? Or debate of any kind? Or some kind of truth? Kicking people in the shins is not usually a very good way to achieve any of these things.
April 26, 2010, 10:24 amMax says:
Does Europe’s unique racial dynamic play any role here? The United States doesn’t have a need for restrictive laws like these but I wouldn’t say the same for England or France. With this in mind, I think the unique context of an airport prayer room makes this a form of harassment first and free speech second. And the European racial climate is far too volatile for their governments to risk the repercussions of such conduct going unpunished.
April 26, 2010, 10:48 amRoger the Shrubber says:
Are you trying to say, at least in part, that European governments need to be far more restrictive of anti-religion speech because some Muslims are prone to violence when offended?
April 26, 2010, 11:21 amDeanS says:
I like that famous misanthrope (as some labeled him) H. L. Mencken’s quote. While it is about religion, it can be applied more generally to the expectation of respect.
April 26, 2010, 11:34 amHere it is:
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
Martinned says:
Pragmatism is always tricky.
April 26, 2010, 11:38 amHow did the Republicans put it again during the debate about the GWOT? “The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact”. I don’t know if that is true. In fact, I’m pretty sure that some principles are worth hanging on to no matter what. We don’t torture people no matter how big the bomb is. On the other hand, I also realise that such matters are extremely difficult, ethically. Some degree of common sense is required. ASBOs are an extremely flexible way for the courts to deal with real people’s problems, and as long as they are used reluctantly and with careful supervision, they are a valuable instrument.
Mark Field says:
The principle is that the government is restricted in 2 ways:
1. It can’t deem some arguments valid and others not; and
2. It can’t control the attitude you display in making the argument.
It’s up to the individual to decide how best to present the argument.
I’d say it’s working out quite well.
April 26, 2010, 11:52 amShelbyC says:
This originates from Justice Jackson’s dissenting argument in Terminiello v. Chicago suggesting that the govt can ban speech that stirs the public to anger. It most certainly cannot.
April 26, 2010, 11:58 amMartinned says:
Cool. I didn’t know that. I always kinda liked Justice Jackson, on account of the Nuremberg thing and his Youngstown concurrence, but I guess this one is a notch against him, just like his opinion on Lend Lease.
April 26, 2010, 12:19 pmMax says:
I wouldn’t say they need to be far more restrictive, since I don’t think this type of law is such a huge step on the free speech continuum (though I imagine many would disagree). The man’s purpose in this case was to harass and provoke by attacking what might be, to many, their most profound sensibilities. I also think that stability and preserving order in racially tense Europe is a paramount concern. Certainly this smacks of a large scale heckler’s veto problem, but so long as this is a limited exception to a wider recognition of otherwise free speech, I think Europe’s unique context justifies this type of law.
April 26, 2010, 12:24 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
I guess it’s out of the question for atheists to conclude that they have no particular reason to go into a praying room at an airport at all, and to stroll on past just as teetotallers stroll past the bars.
Shelby, I kind of think that in a civil society people do have an obligation to treat each other with courtesy and respect except in extraordinary circumstances. And I don’t think it’s a given that getting thicker skins is a good thing. It’s kind of like saying that it’s great that more people are getting concealed-weapon permits, in the absense of any desire for crime rates to go down.
[Had that been my airport, I would just have thrown the material away without saying anything, and repeated as frequently as necessary until it stopped. People like that feed on the response they get because they do it in order to cause outrage. Feed that, and you get more of it. It's like the extinction that you practice on toddlers' temper tantrums. I'm kind of baffled by people who seem to think behavior whose ONLY motive is to cause offense and hurt feelings is actually a positive thing, more baffled than by people who want to outlaw it.]
April 26, 2010, 12:44 pmMartinned says:
Well put.
April 26, 2010, 12:52 pmJulie says:
Er…what is an “airport prayer room”? I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting airport would sponsor a prayer room. Then again, the company I work for has one. Scary.
April 26, 2010, 12:55 pmChris Travers says:
Who would own copyrights, etc. to the flag? Is the government merely passing on a license from a powerful private business? That seems like a bad idea to me.
Worse, the government can’t copyright its own works…..
April 26, 2010, 2:32 pmChris Travers says:
Do you go around being obnoxious on purpose to random strangers? If not, why not? Is it that you receive a benefit from being polite and respectful? In other words, is it fair to say that generally folks shouldn’t be obnoxious to others?
Maybe not a given. However, I think it is a good thing in the present world. Here’s how I look at it:
If you want to become physically strong, you have to work against and through physical resistance.
(For example, if you want strong bones, you have to apply stress to your bones. Same with muscles…)
If you want to become morally strong, you have to work against and through moral resistance.
If you want to become strong in any other way, you have to work against and through resistance of a comparable type to what strength you want to build.
Up to a certain point, I think having strength is a good thing. Our life today, however, is anomilous in that we need a lot less physical/emotional strength than our ancestors did. It may be a good thing that few of us have to bury our children, but as a result, we have become hypersensitive to such things compared, to, say, 100 years ago. The same goes for a lot of other things too. Consequently, I think our emotional health suffers simply because we have fewer bad experiences, just as our physical health suffers due to lack of a requirement to work physically to survive (riding a horse is a LOT more work than riding a car).
April 26, 2010, 2:42 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Chris, how about if people’s self-control gets flabby because there are no ill effects on them when they get out of line? No reason not to follow through on ridiculous impulses like “I believe I’ll put this offensive literature in a prayer room in order to cause distress to utter strangers”? Do you not see a benefit to encouraging more mature behavior? And if the law doesn’t crack down, and the behavior isn’t controlled by my suggestion of just throwing the crap away until they get tired of it, but by somebody knocking their teeth out, is that really better?
April 26, 2010, 3:04 pmChris Travers says:
Who said there are no ill effects of crossing the line? See my point to Leo Marvin…. If I go around insulting random strangers, you don’t think there will be ill effects? It might get me kicked out of restaurants, and all kinds of bad things. Hence my sense that while it is true that one shouldn’t do this, I can be grateful that a few people do things they shouldn’t.
And of course I see benefits to encouraging more mature behavior. However, I see benefits of having a few people break those rules and for them to consistently go unpunished by the law. For example, portrayals of Mohammed as a pedophile are quite offensive to Muslims. If they were to be posted in a Danish newspaper, I would not be surprised if there were riots in Algeria. But we have seen these sorts of things surface in the US and never has it resulted in worldwide riots. One explanation is that free speech laws in the US prevent a sort of hypersensitivity and a feeling of unequal treatment that fueled the Jyllands-Posten riots.
So my larger concern though is that encouraging folks to be very upset when anything offensive comes up makes people hypersensitive to this and insensitive to dialog. The fact that most of us now see all our children live to adulthood is great, but it means we have to find other things to provide us resistance.
April 26, 2010, 3:32 pmleo marvin says:
No, I do my best to practice the Golden Rule. Whether I do it for some kind of benefit turns on how you define “benefit.” In light of what I value I think practicing the Golden Rule serves my enlightened self-interest.
Yes, I thought it was clear that’s what I was saying, so I don’t understand what your response is getting at.
April 26, 2010, 4:15 pmRandy says:
Laura: “Had that been my airport,”
How much to buy an airport nowadays?
April 26, 2010, 4:15 pmRandy says:
Julie: “I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting airport would sponsor a prayer room.”
You’d be praying too if you plan on eating what they throw you on airplanes.
April 26, 2010, 4:18 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Randy, I was thinking of this:
April 26, 2010, 4:36 pmCB says:
I think prayer rooms are a fairly recent phenomenon to “accomodate” Muslim prayers. I think there’s a big brouhaha nowadays when Muslims get on their mats to pray in the airports…kind of freaks other passengers out.
And that probably explains why the legal response. Christians typically turn the other cheek…Muslims take immediate offense and go to the authorities for banishment of the offending party. It would be interesting to know which faith was involved with this.
April 26, 2010, 4:39 pmShelbyC says:
Well, treating people civily is certainly an admiral goal, but I think it’s pretty clear that the first amendment prevents what you’re suggesting from being a legally enforcable obligation, especially if the government gets to decide what “courtesy and respect” is and what “extrordinary circumstances” are. What if the DOJ thinks my criticism of the President is discourtious?
April 26, 2010, 7:06 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Well, of course. Are we to the point that we only acknowledge obligations that have the force of law behind them?
April 26, 2010, 7:41 pmShelbyC says:
Of course not. I guess I’m just confused about why your comment was addressed to me, since I don’t recall having said anything that would suggest the opposite. All I’ve done is criticized the legal action and defended you and Randy for criticizing the speech.
April 26, 2010, 8:05 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Shelby, you are so right and I apologize. I was confusing you with Chris, here. Sorry.
April 26, 2010, 8:21 pmShelbyC says:
np :-)
April 26, 2010, 8:36 pmNickM says:
You buy a Congressman. He gives you the airport after getting it paid for with earmarks. Prices are negotiable.
Nick
April 26, 2010, 10:53 pmRicardo says:
The vast majority of Muslims not living in Muslim countries don’t whip their prayer mats out in a public place, kneel down in the middle of a corridor where people are walking and start to pray. Generally, they find a quiet and secluded place if at all possible just as people of any other religion tend to do. Incidentally, when I was in Warsaw airport a few years ago there was a clearly marked “Chapel” inside the departure lounge. Some religious Jews also pray quite frequently and would probably prefer to do so in a private setting.
A surgical strike against some taboo or shibboleth can, in fact, be a very effective way to start a public debate. It’s the people who cause offense who tend to sell books and get invited on TV to do interviews. In the U.S., Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are the ones selling all the atheist books and getting invited to debates and lectures — not some mild-mannered philosophy professor.
In this case, of course, the social value of these cartoons is likely to be pretty low and the venue they were distributed in was not appropriate. The point, of course, is that there isn’t anyone who can be trusted to decide these matters in the legal realm. I’d support fining the guy for littering, though.
April 26, 2010, 11:17 pmMartinned says:
I’m with you on the legal angle. It’s just that I don’t think Hitchens and Dawkins are really convincing anybody. It’s a good way to earn a living, though…
Judging from the threads here on VC, this might not be so far off the truth.
This morning’s paper had a story about the increasing tendency of people here to talk during concerts. Apparently, they think it is their “right” to do so, and get annoyed if someone interferes with their conversation by asking them to shut up. It’s the same story with the “silence” sections in trains. The notion of rights seems to get people confused.
April 27, 2010, 10:02 amMarkham S. Pyle says:
If that sort of prosecution becomes widespread, there should be some very nervous people at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office right now.
April 27, 2010, 1:51 pmCB says:
Okay, here’s the info. “The leaflets were discovered by Nicky Lees, the airport chaplain, who told the court she felt “deeply offended and insulted” by their contents”
Sheesh lady, turn the other cheek.
Here’s the atheist’s defense: “Mr Taylor, 59, a self-styled philosophy tutor, denied bearing a grudge against people of faith and said he was only trying to “convert” believers to atheism.”
What a childish man.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7353643/Philosophy-tutor-in-court-for-leaving-anti-religious-cartoons-in-John-Lennon-airport.html
April 27, 2010, 2:13 pmCB says:
This is interesting. Apparently this man has a similar prior conviction on this. I wonder why it’s now being made such an issue? And I think it’s odd none of the press reports except this one mentions the prior conviction.
And why couldn’t this be tried under some sort of public nuisance charge instead of a blasphemy-type charge if the guy is an uncontrollable serial agitator? Or just barred from the airport?
“Judge James said: “Not only have you shown no remorse for what you did, but even now you continue to maintain you have done nothing wrong and say that whenever you feel like it you intend to do the same thing again in the future.”
Taylor was ordered to carry out 100 hours’ unpaid work and pay £250 in costs. Brigid Baillie, defending, told the court Taylor, who has a similar previous conviction, said he had learned his lesson.”
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/04/24/militant-atheist-harry-taylor-hit-with-asbo-for-offensive-images-in-john-lennon-airport-100252-26307049/
April 27, 2010, 3:46 pmChris Travers says:
My point is that the prosecutions are substantially more dangerous than what they are prosecuting.
April 27, 2010, 4:21 pmCB says:
Actually, the more I think about it…what the heck is an airport chaplain? Do we have these in the U.S.? It seems bizarre. Is there one denomination or are all denominations used? Perhaps in England it’s the Anglican church? Are they at every airport or just some?
Do these prayer rooms actually have services going on in them? Or are they just for prayer? I was under the impression it was just a convenient little room where people could step in and do their, shall we say..more physical prayers, with a little privacy. Anyone know?
April 27, 2010, 4:30 pmCB says:
Final answer for me:
I think whoever said to just ticket him for littering would have been the best answer, especially if he’s a pain in the butt repeat offender. (After, of course, the airport chaplain tried to invite him over for tea and crumpets.) :-)
April 27, 2010, 5:30 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Chris, I get it.
My point is that I don’t see the benefit of actively irritating people just for the hell of it.
Scenario 1: People are gratuitously offensive and there is no control of law. (I believe this is your choice.)
Scenario 2: People are not gratuitously offensive and the law isn’t really challenged because the situation doesn’t come up. (This is my choice.)
Scenario 3: People are not gratuitously offensive b/c it’s against the law.
I realize that you think 3 is the worst-case scenario. We differ in that I think freedom of speech is absolutely necessary for purposes of criticizing the government but I don’t think it’s all that crucial when you are just talking about offending the living daylights out of people who haven’t done anything to you. I just don’t see the overwhelming benefit to society, to push that envelope at every possible moment. Outside absolute tyranny and punishment of thoughtcrime, my worst-case scenario is no control at all, so that the lowest common denominator sets the standard for everyone. I quit commenting at a blog I quite enjoyed, because of one commenter who, metaphorically speaking, crapped in his hand and smeared it on the walls and the blogger called it art. I really don’t get the attraction. At the VC, there is some control, some things are not tolerated, and I don’t know whether you agree or not but I have to say this place would become unbearable were that not the case.
April 27, 2010, 9:22 pmMartinned says:
He was charged for violating his ASBO, which he got as a result of his previous activities of this type.
April 28, 2010, 11:07 amChris Travers says:
Laura:
The problem is that a weaker standard encourages folks to be offended at ideas they dislike. For example, would it be out of bounds in suggest a return to segregation? Obviously such a view has political value in the sense that it is political speech but it’s also extraordinarily offensive, and opponents would argue needlessly so. Or suppose I take “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and change it so we are advocating eating Palestinian children instead of Irish children? Again, quite offensive, but arguably of great political value. What about a cartoon which expresses sympathy with the 9/11 terrorists? As you may recall, composing and publishing such a cartoon would be illegal in France.
What’s next, no “lost dog” notices in Muslim neighborhoods?
Here you have someone arguably making a political point (one which mostly I disagree with), that religion is responsible for the great evils in the world, and many of the cartoons are aimed specifically at delivering that message. Maybe the pig/sausage one went over a line, or maybe I just don’t get that one.
The problem is that people can be offended at whatever they want to be offended. If we give that too much weight, we encourage censorship. Many people are fine banning “patently offensive” sexually explicit material under obscenity laws (I’m not, btw), but this goes to show how this sort of thing can be used for nation-wide censorship (recall the multijurisdictional prosecutions of the Reagan era aimed at removing material from the national market, not just local communities).
In the end, “I find that extremely offensive” does not necessarily mean that the speech should be self-censored. While gratuitously offending people for the mere purpose of offending them is not generally a good thing to do and carries with it natural unpleasant consequences if done as a habit, in the sense that it gives people a sufficiently thick skin that we can discuss even the most unpopular ideas, it’s a social good.
April 28, 2010, 11:54 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
There’s where we disagree. If I can tell my boss that I do exactly what he wants almost all of the time but I’m sticking at doing this one thing because X, I have more credibility than if I am constantly resisting doing what he wants. In the same way, if I can say that ordinarily I’m a civil person who avoids unnecessary discord, but in this instance I have to speak up because Y, I think I’d have more credibility and my speech would be more effective than if I were always being an a-hole for the sake of being one.
When you have something to communicate and you couch it in hurtful ways, your message gets lost in the hurt feelings. Unless the message was the hurtfulness. You see value in that and I don’t.
So we’ll agree to disagree.
April 28, 2010, 12:38 pmJG says:
@Richard Nieporent:
“No Randy, like the rest of us, should be supporting free speech.”
Doesn’t Randy have freedom of speech?
April 29, 2010, 9:01 amAlan D. james says:
The problem with free speech as practised in the US is the emergence of commentators like Bill Reilly and Sean Hannity. These people would be prosecuted in the UK for inciting insurrection. Whilst I do not agree with the the sentences imposed on Harry Taylor, neither do I condone his behaviour.
He placed these materials in a place where they were likely to provoke a violent reaction. Now, one could say that Muslims always react violently when the tenets of islam are attacked, but notwithstanding the islamic angle, in the UK the law expressly forbids this kind of action, and it is not designed to protect just muslim sensibilities.
The law in the UK is designed to ensure that people behave reasonably. Unfortunately, it only works when people abide by the intent of the law. When one group (either muslim or skinhead fascist) refuses to do so, we see reactions like this – both sides of the argument become hysterical. What we need to see is the law being applied in mosques as well as elsewhere.
The freedoms that were won during and since the French revolution have been hard won, and the last thing we need is idiots like Harry Talyor or Bill Reilly provoking reactions that will cause a curtailment of these rights – just look at the knee-jerk reaction of the Patriot Act or the curtailment of Habeus Corpus both in the US and UK to see what I mean.
I have always thought that reasonable argument is the best way to win over people who disagree with me – it also serves best to isolate the extremists amongst us.
May 31, 2010, 8:35 amAndrew says:
I’d be willing to bet that there was a Bible somewhere in that airport prayer room, and I find much of the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality and the role of women in society to be deeply, horrendously offensive.
Do you think I’d have a case?
June 14, 2010, 11:34 pm