russ_watters said:
It's not my logic I'm concerned about, it is yours. You seem to be arguing a point that isn't being contested (the pastor intended to insult) while assuming instead of supporting the point that needs to be supported (insulting speech isn't/shouldn't be protected).
The reason I don't fully explain why I disagree with you is that I don't want to get into a burden-of-proof-shifting situation here. You've implicitly made the claim that insulting speech should not be protected so you need to explain, support and defend it: it is not the standard, internationally recognized view of how freedom of speech works/should work. To that end, I will not respond to the parts of your post where you speculate utterly without basis and completely wrongly, about what my position might be. You are making a claim here and you need to support it.
So I'll be explicit:
1. Why isn't/shouldn't insulting speech be supported?
2. Is there historical and legal precedent regarding this view?
I'll give a little hint: the UK has recently changed its view of freedom of speech to incorporate (among other restrictions) the idea that insulting speech should be banned and the issue has raised some controversy/criticism.
In addition: If a law is not clear, universal, and objective, then how can it be possible for people to make sure they follow it while still exercising their rights?
I hate to go round in circles on matters that are not the heart of the point. Hopefully we can put some things aside. I only ever sought to establish that the pastor’s actions were intentionally insulting and provocative in answer to someone else who talked of ‘perceived insult’. I always understood that you were not contending that the pastor’s actions were not intentionally insulting.
Neither am I in any way attempting to ‘shift the burden of proof’. I am only trying to argue a case, one in which I believe. And I am not certain that ‘proof’ is the right thing to be seeking, I certainly accept that there are no absolutes here. I apologise if you feel that I have in any way misrepresented you, I did not intend to do that either. I would have to say that I did acknowledge the possibility that I was mis-perceiving your case by talking about what your case ‘appeared’ to be. Perhaps it will be less problematic if I talk instead about what my perception of the contrary case is and why I seek to argue against that contrary case and say nothing at all about what your case is and is not.
But asking for historical and legal precedence seems a little beyond the pale to me. My perception was that this is just a discussion about a current political and world affair. I hold a viewpoint that I sought to express, and certainly that viewpoint may well be in some way informed by my understanding and perception of past events, and as such I might have referred to some such events in support of my case. I am reasonably confident that I am not alone in my view though it may very well be a minority view. I am not sure that many would reasonably expect me to cite historical and legal precedence to justify my viewpoint. All I can say is, dismiss me as you wish, I am only expressing a viewpoint.
On that basis, let me make one more attempt to lay out my case as clearly as I can. I certainly perfectly well understand the motivations for the creation of the first amendment to the American constitution. In the news only yesterday was the story of a Chinese artist arrested and detained on some pretext, when the strong suggestion of events leading up to that arrest is that the true reason for his detention is criticisms he has made of the Chinese regime. It is a critical point that arguing that the arrest of that artist is wrong in no way implies any acceptance of or agreement with the specifics of his criticisms. Whatever the justifications for the things he has said, it is clear that, if you believe in freedom of the individual as a fundamental human right, then you surely must also see it is a profound wrong for him to be arrested merely for the criticisms he has made. His freedom to make his criticisms is a principle well worth standing up for.
But there is a wealth of difference between making criticisms of something that you believe to be flawed and making statements and assertions that you have calculated to touch on the sensitivities of others or acting in ways intended to provoke a violent reaction from others. Now there are a couple of immediate clarifications I need to make to cut off any false assumptions about my case. Firstly, I perfectly well understand and accept the problem of misdirection of blame. If individuals or groups are provoked to violence by something someone else said or did, then responsibility for that violence and the consequences of that violence are not with the person who behaved provocatively, they are entirely with those who actually executed the violence. But that does not absolve the person who behaved provocatively. That provocation carries its own responsibility and the individual responsible is answerable for that. The second essential clarification is that I am not arguing that no-one should ever be allowed to say anything that touches on the sensitivities of others, unfortunately the situation is much more complex than that. I can anticipate a demand for me to cite specific examples, I can only suggest a concern for taking the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent, but what I want to say is that there have been cases where a strong argument can be put that sensitivities that were touched on needed to be touched on, and that the results of touching on those sensitivities was a necessary shift in broadly held opinions and a genuine move in the direction of a fairer, more equitable society.
So it would even be too simplistic to attempt to draw a line on what can and what cannot be said only on the basis of certain people’s sensitivities. But there are situations where sensitivities exist because of a heavy history that the situation carries and cannot escape. Again, I will avoid mentioning specific examples yet, but if it is insisted that I do, then I will mention some cases that I have in mind, and try to prevent a wandering from the point by making it clear that I am only trying to establish examples of situations that are so sensitive that most of us would quite naturally recognise the need to be very careful with what we say.
But ultimately, here is what I am arguing. The contrary case appears to me to be that any attempt to restrict free speech raises the danger of the kind of situation exemplified by the Chinese artist that I mentioned and that the only way to ensure that such a thing never happens is to allow anyone to say whatever they want to say, regardless of the motivations of the speaker, regardless of the sensitivities of any other person to what is said, and regardless of the historical context of those sensitivities. My case is only that there does exist sufficient basis on which to draw distinctions that allow the exercise of sensible restrictions without raising any danger whatever of the restriction of valid and necessary criticism. I hear what you are saying about the practical need for a definite line in law, my concern is only that an attempt to draw a definitive line inevitably tends to lead to a situation where you have amendments to the amendments of the amendment. Reality, it seems to me is always going to prove to be more complex than any attempt to anticipate it is ever going to be.
And finally, I do have to return to my original assertion, in which I do passionately believe. Even if a person continues to contend that the danger to free speech is too great if you allow any restrictions whatever, then still to characterise the pastor’s actions in burning a copy of the Koran as an example of free speech is to lend the act a dignity that it simply does not deserve.
