U.S. v. Canada When It Comes to Free Speech

This is a discussion on U.S. v. Canada When It Comes to Free Speech within the Human Rights forum, part of the International Law Issues category; Oliver Wendell Holmes, photographed in 1900, served 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court and had the nickname the “Great ...

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply

 

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 12th, 2008, 12:00 PM   #1
News
 
WSJ_law_blog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,438

Default U.S. v. Canada When It Comes to Free Speech



Oliver Wendell Holmes, photographed in 1900, served 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court and had the nickname the “Great Dissenter” because of his liberal views. (AP Photo)


Last week’s report that actress Brigitte Bardot had been convicted of provoking racial hatred by writing that Muslims are destroying France brought to mind an important difference between the U.S. and Europe: When it comes to offensive speech, the U.S., in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, tends to leave regulation to the marketplace of ideas.

In today’s NYT, an article by Adam Liptak teaches us that our free speech policies also diverge from those of our neighbor to the north. Liptak reports that Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, is on trial for publishing an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say Maclean’s violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They seek a ruling that the magazine be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

Ironically, the article in question, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone,” which is reportedly about how the U.S. takes a different path when it comes to its treatment of hate speech. Liptak writes that Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

In his opening statement in the Canadian magazine case, reports the NYT, the Canadian Islamic Congress’s lawyer, Faisal Joseph, told a three-member panel of the tribunal that they “are the only thing between racist, hateful, contemptuous Islamophobic and irresponsible journalism, and law-abiding Canadian citizens.”

In response, the lawyer for Maclean’s, Roger D. McConchie, criticized the hate speech law: “Innocent intent is not a defense. Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.”

Last edited by top_admin; Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:14 PM.
WSJ_law_blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark & Share



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

| More

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Format Your Messages
Add Forum to Google Toolbar
Forum Jump

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S. Supreme Court Term to Tackle Free Speech, Business Regulation, Criminal Law forum_admin Courts, Decisions, Appeals 1 Oct 5th, 2009 04:46 PM
How stop Internet bullying of children without violating free speech? forum_admin Internet Law 0 Sep 30th, 2009 09:57 PM
Judge Rejects Credit Rating Firms? Free-Speech Claims WSJ_law_blog Law News 0 Sep 3rd, 2009 09:30 PM
Freedom Of Speech?? Unregistered Other Labor Law Matters 1 Dec 30th, 2006 01:32 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 AM.