Freedom of Speech Or Hate Crime?

The struggle of freedom of speech for me has always been balencing the benefits vs the damage that can be done by speeching freely. Few would support a right for all people to incite a riot. The concept of "hate crimes" has emerged as a cutting edge topic in the arena. Burning crosses in the front yard of African Americans has been turned into a crime in many states. It sure makes sense to me to make it a crime. I'm not aware of any consequences to freedoms I would defend.
One of the difficult areas that continues to tangle in the courts is photographs of children in various stages of undress. No one wants to jail a parent for taking a picture of a naked baby waiting to be diapered, yet everyone wants to jail a child pornographer. But there have been examples where someones precious memories and art has been seen as another man's porn.
Religious intolerance is as ugly and provocative behavior as anything in the annals of historic discrimination and incitement to riot and war. So for Britain to consider outlawing statements of religious incitement as a hate crime seem a natural extension. What consequences may come from this? One can imagine an explicitly worded historical recount of an event that has been perceived very differently in other quarters might be seen as a violation of this war. This could have a chilling effect on both history and journalism where understatement becomes the rule and accuracy is compromised.
Ultimately, the outcome of such a law is manifest in test cases in the courts. I know of no unwitting victims of racial hate crimes. But they might exist, I don't know. Yet I would hate to see us abandon efforts to contain the excesses of free speech for fear of limiting legitimate exchange.
There is no easy answers.
Guardian Unlimited Books | News | Home Office to meet Rushdie over censorship fears

In a letter to the Guardian published on January 6, Mr Rushdie wrote: "The continuing collapse of liberal, democratic, secular and humanist principles in the face of the increasingly strident demands of organised religions is perhaps the most worrying aspect of life in contemporary Britain."

In response, Ms Mactaggart wrote a letter to the Guardian in which she said: "Free speech is a crucial right for everyone, faith groups as well as artists. For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred of others on the basis of their race. "Now we are seeking to offer the same protection to people targeted because of their faith. This is not religious appeasement, but a responsible reaction to the tactics of those, especially from the extreme right, who would foster community tension by stirring up hatred of members of a faith group."

[Undernews]

Complete Article
Home Office to meet Rushdie over censorship fears
Read the authors' letter in full
Mark Oliver
Thursday January 13, 2005
Guardian Unlimited
The Home Office has given in to pressure from some of Britain's leading writers to hold a meeting with them to discuss their fears that the proposed new law on inciting religious hatred will stifle artistic liberty, it emerged last night.
Salman Rushdie and more than 200 writers of various faiths signed a letter from the writers' group English Pen which was sent to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, earlier this month seeking an "urgent" meeting with him.
English Pen said Mr Rushdie had received a response from home office minister Fiona Mactaggart and that they hoped the meeting would take place within the next week.
Mr Rushdie, who is a vice president of the group, and other representatives of Pen will attend.
The writers, who include Zadie Smith, Monica Ali, William Boyd, Lady Antonia Fraser and Hanif Kureishi, are anxious that the legislation, which is planned to be incorporated into the Serious Organised Crime Bill, will damage freedom of expression.
Their concerns have been fuelled by the recent demonstrations over the play Bezhti, by a Sikh writer, which was cancelled at a Birmingham theatre after a riot by Sikh protesters and by the demonstrations prompted by the showing of Jerry Springer the Opera on BBC2 at the weekend. Christian groups attacked the show as "blasphemous" and it drew around 50,000 complaints.
In the letter to Mr Clarke, the writers said that the legislation would "make it illegal to express what some might consider to be provocative views on religion". It could, they say, serve as a "sanction for censorship of a kind which would constrain writers and impoverish cultural life".
A Home Office spokesman said: "Both Fiona Mactaggart and the home secretary understand the concerns some groups feel about this legislation and are happy to have meetings to discuss these and reassure them."
In a letter to the Guardian published on January 6, Mr Rushdie wrote: "The continuing collapse of liberal, democratic, secular and humanist principles in the face of the increasingly strident demands of organised religions is perhaps the most worrying aspect of life in contemporary Britain."
In response, Ms Mactaggart wrote a letter to the Guardian in which she said: "Free speech is a crucial right for everyone, faith groups as well as artists. For many years the law has established that free speech rights do not licence people to stir up hatred of others on the basis of their race.
"Now we are seeking to offer the same protection to people targeted because of their faith. This is not religious appeasement, but a responsible reaction to the tactics of those, especially from the extreme right, who would foster community tension by stirring up hatred of members of a faith group."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005