248: Paul Coleman: Blasphemy laws for the 21st century
Sep 21, 2023
auto_awesome
Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International and author of Censored, joins Brendan O'Neill to discuss the unstoppable march of censorship, the totalitarian roots of hate-speech laws, and the dangers of subjective hate speech laws that suppress free speech.
Hate speech laws can be used to silence opposing opinions, illustrating their vagueness and potential for misuse.
There is a growing opposition and pushback against hate speech laws, highlighting concerns about freedom of speech and expression.
Hate speech laws have their historical origins in the desire to control speech and suppress dissent, expanding over time and leading to chilling consequences.
Deep dives
Finnish politician Pivä Räsänen's case and the dangers of new censorship
Finnish politician Pivä Räsänen faced criminal charges and was dragged through the court system for expressing her discomfort with a local church support of a Pride march on Twitter. The charges were brought under hate speech laws, prompting concerns about the impact on freedom of speech and religious beliefs. The case illustrates the Orwellian nature of modern censorship, where expressing deeply held beliefs can lead to legal repercussions. The media response in Finland initially supported the charges, but gradually shifted as it became evident that Räsänen's prosecution was based on her religious perspectives. This case highlights the vagueness and arbitrariness of hate speech laws, and the potential for them to be used as a tool to silence different opinions.
Pushback against hate speech laws and growing opposition
There is a growing opposition and pushback against hate speech laws. Public sentiment is shifting as more people realize that these laws can affect their own freedom of speech and expression. Controversial hate crime bills in Ireland and Scotland have faced public scrutiny and reservations from lawmakers. The subjective nature of hate speech laws and their potential for misuse are becoming more apparent, leading to criticisms and concerns. Many individuals and organizations are recognizing the need for a principled and consistent approach to freedom of speech, defending the rights of others to express their beliefs, even if they find them offensive. The growing pushback against hate speech laws signals a collective recognition of the dangers of censorship and the importance of protecting free expression.
Historical origins and chilling consequences of hate speech laws
Hate speech laws have their historical origins in the post-World War II period, with the Soviet-led Communist bloc advocating for the banning of "advocacy of hatred." These laws were influenced by a desire to control speech and suppress dissent, rather than solely targeting hate or dangerous speech. Over time, hate speech laws have expanded, leading to chilling consequences. Examples include the misapplication of hate crimes charges against individuals with different viewpoints, the censoring of biological facts about gender, and the stifling of free expression. Hate speech laws are often vaguely worded, subject to interpretation, and can be used as a weapon to silence opposing opinions.
Subjectivity and unwieldiness of hate speech laws
One of the key issues with hate speech laws is their subjectivity and open-ended interpretation. Hate crimes and hate speech incidents often rely on the perception of the victim or the person experiencing the speech, leading to a wide range of interpretations. This subjectivity makes it difficult for individuals to know if they are breaking the law or to find out what is considered hateful in a changing socio-cultural climate. The unwieldiness of hate speech laws is further exacerbated by the inclusion of historical offenses and the digging up of past statements that were not considered offensive at the time. The evolving nature of hate speech laws and their susceptibility to misuse challenge the principles of legal certainty and predictable application of criminal laws.
Importance of a principled and collective approach to freedom of speech
The importance of a principled and collective approach to freedom of speech lies in the recognition that it cannot solely be about protecting one's own right to express beliefs, but also defending the rights of others to express opinions, even if they are deeply offensive. Such an approach ensures a consistent defense of free expression for all individuals, regardless of personal opinions or biases. Additionally, a collective defense of freedom of speech is pragmatic, as it safeguards against the encroachment of censorship on a broader scale. By recognizing the interconnectedness of free speech rights and opposing censorship in all its forms, individuals can enhance the defense of freedom of expression for everyone.
Paul Coleman – executive director of ADF International and author of Censored – returns to the The Brendan O’Neill Show. Paul and Brendan discuss the unstoppable march of censorship in the West and the totalitarian roots of modern hate-speech laws.
