How far can freedom of speech go?

[Uthman]

How far can freedom of speech go?
By Jon Silverman
Legal Analyst

Four Islamic radicals have been jailed for their part in a protest in London against the publication of Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

But where does the case leave our right to freedom of speech?

The protesters gathered outside the Danish Embassy in London

Given the gravity of the offences of which they were convicted, the sentences on four men jailed for their part in protests against the publication of anti-Muslim cartoons are not excessive.

Three of the four received six years each for soliciting murder. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.

The fourth man got four years for stirring up racial hatred. The maximum under the Public Order Act is seven years.

Three months ago, the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, talked of a need "to step up our game" against those who preached and advocated extremism.

Given the amount of inflammatory rhetoric, there have been very few prosecutions

James Libson
Mishcon de Reya

Four jailed over demo

The latest sentences, coming soon after long jail terms imposed on three men convicted of spreading extremist material through a website, can be seen as a judicial reflection of that commitment.

Comparisons with another case, in which five white supremacists were convicted of conspiracy to stir up racial hatred, show that judges appear to be fairly consistent in dealing with this crime.

In the earlier case, heard at the Old Bailey in October 2005, the men got jail terms ranging from one year to five years. But they pleaded guilty and are likely to have benefited from a discount.

Nevertheless, such trials raise issues of freedom of speech and whether juries are biased against Muslim defendants.

The language used by some of the cartoon protesters may have been ethically unacceptable but where was the evidence that it was intended to incite murder?

Reza Kazim
Islamic Human Rights Commission

Those who have concerns point to the acquittal in 2006 of the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, also charged with inciting racial hatred.

James Libson, head of litigation at the firm, Mishcon de Reya, said that, paradoxically, perceptions of unfairness might be addressed if there were more prosecutions of Muslim extremists.

"Given the amount of inflammatory rhetoric, there have been very few prosecutions. They have tended to be where there have been threats to kill, so juries are more likely to convict.

"If there are more prosecutions of people, such as preachers, who incite hatred and violence, I think there will be a greater variety of verdicts."

'Double standards'

The Griffin case differed from that of the Muslim protesters in that his rhetoric was deployed in a private meeting of party activists rather than at a public gathering.

He also argued that he was attacking a religion, not a race.

Three of the Muslim protesters, Mizanur Rahman, Umran Javed and Abdul Muhid, as well as facing charges under the 1986 Public Order Act, were also charged with soliciting murder under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.

Mizanur Rahman was the last of the cartoon demonstrators to be tried

Reza Kazim of the Islamic Human Rights Commission sees double standards at work.

"The language used by some of the cartoon protesters may have been ethically unacceptable but where was the evidence that it was intended to incite murder? Whereas, we know that BNP rhetoric has led directly to attacks on Muslims and others."

Islamophobia

Barrister and academic, Dr Amir Majid, said there had to be limits on freedom of speech and he was not opposed to prosecuting those who made threats to kill.

"But, in the current climate of heightened concern about terrorism, I am worried that the Attorney-General may succumb to pressure to authorise prosecutions in cases which do not warrant it. And that could provoke strong resentment."

At the demonstrations against publication of the cartoons, there was other behaviour which is likely to lead to greater use of the criminal law in future.
Flag burning and dressing as a suicide bomber is regarded by the police as highly provocative and it is likely that powers under the Terrorism Act 2006 to remove material from websites and the application of anti social behaviour orders will be used more frequently.

Reza Kazim argues that existing powers are quite strong enough and that politicians are stoking up Islamophobia.

Not for the first time, the boundary between freedom of speech and security is proving a legal and political minefield.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236730.stm

[Uthman]

[wilberhum]

How far can freedom of speech go?

IMHO When it can cause phisical harm, that is too far.

PS: Cool Bump :p

[Uthman]

In which case all people with glasses have no social lives.

All blondes are dumb.

All Germans hate Jews.

Bush is Stupid.

And Blair is an idiot.

Drat I can't think of anymore.

:muddlehea

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Uthman]

:sl:

'All Muslims are terrorists' is not a valid response! :D

[wilberhum]

In which case all people with glasses have no social lives.

All blondes are dumb.

All Germans hate Jews.

Bush is Stupid.

And Blair is an idiot.

Drat I can't think of anymore.

:muddlehea

That's fine. :D

Everyone is entitled to voice there opinion and no one was physically harmed.

BTW The West is Evil. :D

PS: Saying Bush is stupid is a complement. :-\

[wilberhum]

I wonder how many on this forum have actually seen the cartoons.

I remember on in particular. It was a drawing by the artist of himself, drawing something with one hand and covering it with the other. :giggling:
I thought it was one of the more clever things I have seen.
To me, the most offensive was one added by a cleric to incite hatred. :phew

So which one of those two men violated “Freedom of Speech”? :hmm:

[beespreeteam]

lol.

[guyabano]

This says it all:

Four Islamic radicals

In that case, I doubt it's a peaceful demonstration and I'm pretty sure, flyers like 'Kill the west' or 'All Kuffars go to hell' appear somewhere in the crowd.
Anyway, that is not Islamophobia, if there were some Nazi marching in the streets yelling 'Heil Hitler', I think they will also end up in jail !

[KAding]

I would disagree with the 'stirring racial hatred' conviction. I think such concepts are just too vague and are a slippery slope. But calling for murder is a completely different matter, which warrants legal intervention from the side of the authorities.

[beespreeteam]

Not sure about that... I just watched this documentary about these two little girls who were pretty much raised as racist white supremacists who sing songs everywhere. Their band is called 'Prussian Blue' LOL./

[Uthman]

Wilberhum,

Everyone is entitled to voice there opinion and no one was physically harmed.

While that is currently true under the law, I really don't agree with it. I don't believe anybody should be entitled to lie (unless lying would avert physical harm) and I don't believe anybody should be entitled to offend or upset another person, let alone a whole race or religious group.

I don't believe Hitler should have had the legal right to voice his hatred of the Jews. Do you?

[Re.TiReD]

People should leave things as thoughts....just coz a person thinks bad of anoyther doesnt mean they should go advertising it...freedom of speech is restricted and should be. You can THINK what you want...dun need to say it

[Amadeus85]

The protesters were 100 % idiots. When someone glorifies terrorism and calls to it, it must end in prison.

[sevgi]

hitler was a man with power...

who gave it to him? the people did...ppl of all race...the jews gave it too him.in the face of pure evil power...u need a backup..just as mighty...

as the law goes...equal and opposite reaction=0 force...right?

the world at the time gave him the power...well, they didnt place it in his hand, but he surely obtained it...and with ease...and he used it...wat were they expecting him to do...save it for a rainy day?

did he use freedom of speech to obtain his power? i dno...it wud make a gud hsty essay question thats for sure...but no...

there was no such thing as freedom of speech bak then.thats why noone could stop him. he wasnt free with his speech...he just took over the forum...

i feel like im in a histy tutorial.

[Noddy]

The protesters were 100 % idiots. When someone glorifies terrorism and calls to it, it must end in prison.

I very much agree.

As a muslim i went down to see the protest, what i saw and heard was shocking.

From the young ones to the oldest people shouting in the name allah they will carry out bombings, beheadings etc... With kids around it wasn't nice to see nor hear what some people who call themself muslims saying.

Yes it was wrong for the drewings but there is no need for people to be wearing bullet proof vest which made some other brothers and the general public feel unconfitable.

[Uthman]

:sl:

People should leave things as thoughts....just coz a person thinks bad of anoyther doesnt mean they should go advertising it...freedom of speech is restricted and should be. You can THINK what you want...dun need to say it

Indeed.

I have no doubt in my mind that if everyone in this world emulated the character of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) then the world would be a much happier place. A few things that he said:


Whosoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day,then let him speak good or remain silent.

Whoever can guarantee for me (that he will guard) what is between his jaws (tongue) and what is between his legs (private parts), I will guarantee for him Paradise.
Sufyaan Ibn 'Abdillaah (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) reported that he said: O Messenger of Allaah, tell me of a matter that I may hold fast onto.” He (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “Say: ‘I believe in Allaah’, and then remain steadfast (on that).” I said: 'O Messenger of Allaah, what is the most serious thing that I should fear for myself?” So he took a hold of his tongue and said: 'This.’”

Whosoever is granted protection by Allaah from the evil of what is between his jaws and from the evil of what is between his legs,will enter Paradise.

“When the Son of Aadam wakes from his sleep, all of his body parts seek refuge from his tongue, saying: ‘Fear Allaah with regard to us, for indeed we are part of you. So if you are upright,then we will be upright and if you are corrupt, then we shall be corrupt.”

“Every speech of the Son of Aadam is against him not for him, except for commanding good and forbidding evil or the remembrance of Allaah, may He be Exalted.”

Mu’aadh Ibn Jabal (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) reported: “I said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah! Tell me of an act that will take me to Paradise and keep me away from the Hellfire.’ He said: ‘You have asked me about a major matter. But it is easy for he whom Allaah, may He be Exalted, makes it easy for. You must worship Allaah, associating nothing with him. You must perform the prayers and pay the Zakaat. You must fast in Ramadaan and perform the Hajj to the House (Ka’abah).’ Then he (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)said: ‘Shall I not show you the gates of goodness? Fasting is a shield; charity extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire; and (so does) the praying of a man in the depths of the night.’ Then he (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) recited: ‘(Those)who forsake their beds to cry unto their Lord in fear and hope, and spend of what We have bestowed upon them. No soul knows what is kept hidden for them of joy,as a reward for what they used to do.’ [Surah As-Sajdah: 16] Then he (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘Shall I not tell you of the peak of the matter, its pillar and its uppermost part?’ I said: ‘Yes,O Messenger of Allaah!’ He said: ‘The peak of the matter is Islaam. The pillar is prayer and its uppermost part is Jihaad. Shall I not tell you of what controls all that?’ I said: ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allaah.’ So he took a hold of his tongue and said: ‘Restrain this!’ I said: ‘O Prophet of Allaah, will we be held accountable for what we say?’ He (sallAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “May your mother be bereaved of you, O Mu’aadh! Is there anything that causes people to be dragged on their faces – or he said –on their noses into Hellfire other than the harvests of their tongues?’”

From the goodness of an individual’s Islaam is that he abandons (talking about) those things which do not concern him.”

If we look at how much emphasis he put on guarding the tongue, we can see how important it is that we put these words in to practice.

If everyone just stays silent when there is nothing good to say then the world would be a much happier place, I'm tellin ya!

:w:

[sevgi]

The protesters were 100 % idiots. When someone glorifies terrorism and calls to it, it must end in prison.

ditto that...

its aweful..its immoral...all these rallies, protests, stand ups...

dnt they realise that they are only giving the press and media what they want...our 'bright' muslims are feeding them the bacon...then compalining about it even more...

sad really...wen will they learn.what thyre doing is getting them nowhere...it sworking against them.

[wilberhum]

Wilberhum,



While that is currently true under the law, I really don't agree with it. I don't believe anybody should be entitled to lie (unless lying would avert physical harm) and I don't believe anybody should be entitled to offend or upset another person, let alone a whole race or religious group.

I don't believe Hitler should have had the legal right to voice his hatred of the Jews. Do you?

How do we get Hitler as an example of free speech? :(

People should leave things as thoughts

And that’s a nice thought. Thinking of nice thoughts, lets just stop one religion from saying they are right and all others are wrong.
Shall we make that a law? How do we write those laws?

I don't believe anybody should be entitled to lie

Is that going to be a criminal offense?
If I say the Sun will never come up in the West, is that a lie?

and I don't believe anybody should be entitled to offend or upset another person

So no more negative Bush statements, right?

I don't believe Hitler should have had the legal right to voice his hatred of the Jews. Do you?

After he was in power, he made the laws so yes, he had the legal right.
Not all laws created by all groups are good.

I think it isn't nice to be "Not Nice", but whey you want to start making it a law you have a mass of problems and IMHO it would only make things worse.

PS: I noticed no one answered my question.

So which one of those two men violated “Freedom of Speech”?

[Uthman]

Wilberhum,

Is that going to be a criminal offense?

It should be.

If I say the Sun will never come up in the West, is that a lie?

To me it is. But it is your belief. So you can say 'I believe that the Sun will never come up in the West.' Just as I can say 'I believe that the Sun will one day rise in the west'

Neither of those statements are lies.

So no more negative Bush statements, right?

Correct. :) In fact, I remember once having a big rant about how we should stop making fun of Bush as it is unislamic and how we should instead pray for Allah to guide him and so on. I think that thread has been deleted now.

After he was in power, he made the laws so yes, he had the legal right.

Yes, I'm aware of that. My question was should he have had the legal right to do so in your opinion?

Not all laws created by all groups are good.

Sure, I agree with that. :)

I think it isn't nice to be "Not Nice", but whey you want to start making it a law you have a mass of problems and IMHO it would only make things worse.

I might have an idea about what you mean, but can you go into a few of the problems if possible please? Very briefly if you want.

PS: I noticed no one answered my question.

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. The answer is definitely the cleric.

Regards

[wilberhum]

can you go into a few of the problems if possible please? Very briefly if you want.

As an example:
How can it not be insulting to Christians whey you say there god is a lesser prophet of your god?
But this thread is no place to discuss that topic

[Uthman]

Well, that is a belief.

Naturally, I wouldn't walk up to a Christian and say 'Your God is a lesser prophet of my God'. That would most likely be hurtful to them.

But it is freedom of speech that is in question, not freedom of belief. If the situation arises, then yes a Christian and a Muslim can tell each other what they believe but in such a way so as not to offend.

It's easily done. It's been done numerous times on this board easily.

If you like, I can write such a conversation between a Muslim and a Christian. :) The sad person that I am.

Actually no I can't. It's too sad. I do have a life you know! Though it may not seem like it. :rollseyes

Regards

[guyabano]

Well, that is a belief.

Naturally, I wouldn't walk up to a Christian and say 'Your God is a lesser prophet of my God'. That would most likely be hurtful to them.

But it is freedom of speech that is in question, not freedom of belief. If the situation arises, then yes a Christian and a Muslim can tell each other what they believe but in such a way so as not to offend.

It's easily done. It's been done numerous times on this board easily.

If you like, I can write such a conversation between a Muslim and a Christian. :) The sad person that I am.

Actually no I can't. It's too sad. I do have a life you know! Though it may not seem like it. :rollseyes

Regards

well anyway, Muslims should live in peace hand in hand with christians since they have the same God. But fact is, it CAN never happen, as I see no christian wanting something else than a democracy and a muslim wanting to live under sharia law. So, I guess, for the next centuries and generations, life (and war) will go on as usual :hmm:

[wilberhum]

Naturally, I wouldn't walk up to a Christian and say 'Your God is a lesser prophet of my God'. That would most likely be hurtful to them.

That nice. What if someone doesn't want to be nice.

Now just write an enforceable law to cover it.

[Muezzin]

Freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom by any means. I don't think it should be, if some people will abuse it to make calls to violence.

I know qualifying freedom of speech sounds quite controversial, but the truth is there is no absolute freedom to say whatever the heck you want, as you can quite rightly be arrested for urging people to kill someone.

In an ideal world, people would say only nice things, and give only constructive criticism. However, we live in a flawed world, where if you tell a butthead to say more nice things than bad things and maybe people will not treat him as if he is a jerk, you're accused of censoring him.

[wilberhum]

I know qualifying freedom of speech sounds quite controversial,

Not to anyone who thinks about for more than 3 seconds.

You can't yell "Fire" in a crowed room.

[Muezzin]

Not to anyone who thinks about for more than 3 seconds.

You can't yell "Fire" in a crowed room.

The way some people told it after the cartoon chaos, even that would be censorship.

[wilberhum]

The way some people told it after the cartoon chaos, even that would be censorship.

Maybe they didn't think about for more than 3 seconds. :D

[guyabano]

In an ideal world, people would say only nice things, and give only constructive criticism.

ermmm, wouldn't a 'ideal' or a 'perfect' world not be boring ? And wouldn't bored people just not really seek for troubles, for the certain kick? Then again, the world would not be perfect anymore....hmmm, my head start to spin !


Offtopic, but for those who watched the movie 'Matrix' !??

[Uthman]

well anyway, Muslims should live in peace hand in hand with christians since they have the same God. But fact is, it CAN never happen, as I see no christian wanting something else than a democracy and a muslim wanting to live under sharia law. So, I guess, for the next centuries and generations, life (and war) will go on as usual :hmm:

An Islamic state is not necessarily incompatible with democracy, though. As explained in this thread. And this thread.

:)

[Uthman]

:sl:

That nice. What if someone doesn't want to be nice.

Now just write an enforceable law to cover it.

I actually understand your problem with it.

Thing is, I'm speaking from an Islamic point of view and as we know, an Islamic state is based on..wait for it...Islam. And as far as I know, the Qur'an and Sunnah are a source of law so there wouldn't be much problem in implementing that.

But yes I can see it from your point of view. :)

:w:

[wilberhum]

The Defiant Dhimmi must go hide now.
I all ready feel the rage comming on.

[Uthman]

:sl:

And the Islamic state was successfully implemented from the 7th Century with the Ummayads to the 20th century with the Ottomans.

So I don't want anybody telling me that it is impossible or too idealistic!

:w:

[Uthman]

I sense the Defiant Dhimmi is at the point of bursting now?

[Ubaidah]

The protesters were 100 % idiots. When someone glorifies terrorism and calls to it, it must end in prison.

I agree to a certain extent. Glorifying terrorism in any way is very irresponsible and just shows those who are protesting have just lost the plot.

[wilberhum]

I sense the Defiant Dhimmi is at the point of bursting now?

Your sense does not deceive you.

Your concept of "successfully implemented" to the non-Muslim would surly be simular to those of the Native Americans about the successfull implementation of the United States.

[Uthman]

Edit

[Darkseid]

So much stuff

Protesting is excercizing free speech and free assembly, because when you protest you make an assembly to excercize speech. Cartoons are not a part of free speech, yet rather free press.

So this is a case of free speech against free press. To be honest, the government shouldn't get involved because this isn't in their jurisdiction until certain violent acts take place.

My advice for all muslims that find any future offensive Danish Crap-Drawwings and would like to protest is to protest without physical aggression. Simply put up signs completely depicting your feelings towards the subject without acting offensive in anyways towards any group of people that way you don't look like a racist or bigot and then keep bringing up the subject of free speech as something permits you to continue or start these types of protests.

If the Europeans begin to send you to prison. Then you keep at it with bringing up Free Speech being violated, since protesting is an act of free speech.

[Uthman]

Wilberhum,

Your concept of "successfully implemented" to the non-Muslim would surly be simular to those of the Native Americans about the successfull implementation of the United States.

What I meant by 'successfully' was that it was according to Islamic ideals. Often, when talking about an Islamic state, certain people tend to envisage a Utopian society and then tell me that it is not possible. I was just trying to say that this Islamic state is not impossible as it has been set up in the past.

Sure, not all non-Muslims think of it as the best way forward but that's quite beside the point that I was trying to make. :)

Peace

[wilberhum]

Wilberhum,



What I meant by 'successfully' was that it was according to Islamic ideals. Often, when talking about an Islamic state, certain people tend to envisage a Utopian society and then tell me that it is not possible. I was just trying to say that this Islamic state is not impossible as it has been set up in the past.

Sure, not all non-Muslims think of it as the best way forward but that's quite beside the point that I was trying to make. :)

Peace

I was just trying to say that this Islamic state is not impossible as it has been set up in the past.
We always need to go back to expectations. Almost always, when people talk about an Islamic State, thy talk about a situation that never existed and will never exist.

A mod, to whom I give great respect, though a bit naive at times, said that in an Islamic State, no innocent person would be executed because no one would lie in court. Now that is so far off reality it is sad.
Another said it was so peaceful, but when pushed agreed that there were wars.

So we are back to expiations. So your Islamic State would not be Utopia. There would bad people in government. Etc, Etc………. Then it is possible.

Sure, not all non-Muslims think of it as the best way forward
It would probably be more accurate to say, “Most all non-Muslims would not think of it as the best way forward”. People wish for freedom and equality not second class citizenship.

But in the mean time, I live in a Democracy with all its imperfections and I like it.
At least there are attempts for freedom and equality.

[Uthman]

A mod, to whom I give great respect, though a bit naive at times, said that in an Islamic State, no innocent person would be executed because no one would lie in court. Now that is so far off reality it is sad.

I remember because it was a thread that I started. And actually I disagree with this Mod. Of course bad people lie.

Another said it was so peaceful, but when pushed agreed that there were wars.

Peaceful, but not stupid. It won't get attacked by an army and just stay sitting there like ducks!

So we are back to expiations. So your Islamic State would not be Utopia.

It wouldn't. If I ever claimed that it would be, then I take it back. Utopia implies that everybody would be good. But they won't and luckily we have an effective justice system to account for that.

There would bad people in government. Etc, Etc………. Then it is possible.

The 'bad people' would not make up their own laws. They merely need to follow the guidance of the Shari'ah. There would be no concept of 'making it up as we go along' as your post here seems to allude to.

It would probably be more accurate to say, “Most all non-Muslims would not think of it as the best way forward”. People wish for freedom and equality not second class citizenship.

In this day and age, I would be willing to admit that non-Muslims would be happier living in a society like this one.

But in the mean time, I live in a Democracy with all its imperfections and I like it.

I like happy people. :)

At least there are attempts for freedom and equality.

Do you mean religious equality?

Regards

[wilberhum]

Osman
Well it seams we have crossed the half way mark, if not further. But of course there are some questions/statements.

In this day and age, I would be willing to admit that non-Muslims would be happier living in a society like this one.

Like this one? Which one? Democracy or Islamic State?

Peaceful, but not stupid. It won't get attacked by an army and just stay sitting there like ducks!

I think you missed the point, or maybe there is a remote tinny possibility, I did not express my self well. :hmm:
He said there was peace when in fact there were wars.

Do you mean religious equality?

Yes! And gender equality, racial equality, sexual preference equality, and any other kind of equality before the law that you can think of.

Ah, last but not least, the point of true disagreement.

The 'bad people' would not make up their own laws.

The problem is “Bad People” would make up there own laws.
There are those that read the Quran and say it justifies flying plains into buildings. :grumbling

They merely need to follow the guidance of the Shari'ah.

Now every time punishment for apostasy or the requirement of head covering comes up, there 20 different versions of the answer. In that it is not clear on those items, I’m sure there are many others.
So it is nothing as simple as just “Follow the Guidance”.

There would be no concept of 'making it up as we go along' as your post here (How far can freedom of speech go?) seems to allude to.

I think you missed the point, this time I don’t think there is a remote tinny possibility, I did not express my self well. :D
You were getting down to such a trivial point that no law would be written to cover it :thumbs_do

Peace
Wilber