ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (03/05/86)
Ah, nothing I like better than a good firefight :-) ! Before entering the fray, I'd like to point out I was scooped by a number of articles, particularly the ones by Jim Borowitz, and D. Simon. Despite overlap in arguements I've decided to post anyway, although this article lacks the brevity and punch of those mentioned above. >> It was the legal system that made the decision to convict - the decision >> (in theory) could have been made in Zundels favour. ... > >The courts decide the facts of the case. Did Zundel publish something >false and inflammatory? An easy decision, from what I've read. My >argument is against the validity of prohibiting false statements -- not >whether he was given a fair trial or not. What advantage is served by allowing people to publish verifiable lies? Does this make the society a better place to live? I think that most (but not all) adults are capable of discerning fact from fiction, but in a large and complex society this task becomes increasingly difficult. Some things require great amounts of research and technical expertise to determine, others simply require a great amount of time and access to resources which the common citizen doesn't have - this is, in part, the reason why we allow other people (politicians) to make decisions for us, we don't usually have the expertise/resources/time to make them ourselves. To an adolescent, this problem is compounded many fold. When you finally get used to the idea that there is no Easter bunny or Santa Claus you start noticing other things with an only slightly higher level of consciousness. The fact of the matter is that young people are heavily influenced by their social environment. A simple example is that of northern Ireland where children are weened on violence - as a result violence has perpetuated. I used to believe in flying saucers as a child, others still do (no flames from extraterrestrials please :-) ). Allowing people to publish known, and potentially hate inciting falsehoods does not benefit society and is probably only marginally therapeutic to the publisher of these lies :-). Thus a practical need for publishing lies is difficult to argue. "But what about human rights?" you ask, "we shouldn't be allowed to infringe on the rights of individuals." So, you think there is no justifiable reason for censorship eh? Consider a man who is privy to the inner most secrets of the US government. Suppose he lets loose to the press about secret plans for the invasion of El Salvador or perhaps the spending and plans of yet another secret weapons system. "What!", you exclaim. "This man is a traitor and should be prevented from harming society with these disclosures!" Did I hear you say something about the good of society? Surely you don't believe that an individual has some responsibility for the society he lives in? Mmmm. This idea is quite radical. Do you really think we should take away his civil liberties by imprisoning him - after all he was merely using his freedom of speech right? It should be quite clear that there are indeed some cases where speech can endanger the society, and it can legitimately be suppressed. >> How do you propose to distinguish veriable truth from opinion? It's First; there is no such thing as "veriable" (variable) truth - either it's true or it isn't. The trick is whether we can tell if it's true. If the truth can be determined then this makes it "verifiable". If a statement cannot be verified we give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and label his/her statement as "opinion". People with opinions should not be censored. > >> >Clearly, human rights are a national decision. And if the people of a >> >central European power decide that exterminating Jews maximizes the benefit >> >to society without too much of a law of individual liberties, that MUST >> >be OK. :-) ... >> >> Can human rights be "logically" derived? The very essence of the term >> "rights" is ambiguous - whether you're prepared to admit it or not, your >> definition of what is a "human right" is a consensus definition from your >> society. What criteria do we use to decide what is a human right? Does >> this criteria take into account the society, or can we define "Human rights" >> in a vacuum. > It's certainly true that without a theistic basis, human rights must of > necessity come from democratic decision... > However, my comments above, concerning the dangers of allow human rights > to be defined by democratic decision stand. If the democracy decides > that group B no longer has any rights, they don't, and most everyone > will go along with the oppression because societies in this century > have increasingly deified democracy. Clayton, I think what you really object to, is the criteria of "human rights" changing at the whim of the current government or society. There is a little thing called a "constitution" that (in theory) protects against this kind of "ad hoc" treatment of rights. But the initial definition of rights is still a definition based on some democratic consensus, which can be amended from time to time as is the case with your own constitution. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not a particular law violates a persons rights. To my knowledge there is no Constitution or like document that singles out a group for abuse. If you still persist in believing that the society should have no input into a definition of human rights how do you propose that we define it? Perhaps the "Clayton definition" would be an appropriate way :-)? Maybe we refer to some political, or religious creeds (which the society probably had no part in forming)? How about a more objective means, say we chain up a 100 monkeys and have them type for 100 years - through chance they might produce a suitable definition. None of these methods is satisfactory in my opinion - we should always be the ones to decide the direction of our own lives. >> ... I suspect that if the common >> man/woman had to come to a definition of human rights they would probably >> resort to the old biblical principle - "Do unto others as you would have >> them do unto you." This is a good general principle for forming a set >> of human rights but it needs a two additions. The first would be that the >> taking of a human life is the only fundamental right that can't be decided >> upon by societal consensus. This principle probably wouldn't be needed since >> in 99.9999% of the cases it's covered by the "Do unto others principle". >> The only reason that I include it is the curious, and short lived, case >> of the "Jonestown society". The second amending principle would be to >> allow any and all additional liberties that don't seriously compromise >> the first two. > >I, also, am an opponent of the death penalty, for a combination of >religious beliefs and pragmatic reasons. (But that's a different >discussion.) But I know this: your statement above acknowledges that >you believe in at least one human right which is NOT subject to democratic >decision making. You therefore do NOT believe that human rights are >based on democratic consensus. ... There are two problems here. I expressed a working definition of human rights. This is *MY* opinion. Having human life as an absolute right is not essential - the US, for instance, has been doing quite well without it. In Canada (for better or worse) we have done away with the death penalty. The second problem is your assumption that I believe "human rights" to be based on democratic consensus. This is not always the case - but it should be. Therefore I ".. do NOT believe that human rights *are* based on democratic consensus." This is not because I believe that there is one absolute right, rather, the reason is that "human rights" are unfortunately defined in other ways. Religious dogma is a popular standard these days, as well as government definition. >> >> From this definition it should be clear that "human rights" is a >> relative thing. > >In spite of your remarks above, stating that taking a human life is >NOT relative. > No. What I believe is that it *shouldn't* be relative. The fact of the matter is that the whole definition is defined relative to the society that you're considering. > >> Before you start believing that I condone the Soviet >> system, I think that it is possible to "judge" whether a society is >> fair in its application of human rights. Specifically we can judge >> whether a society is violating its own "unwritten rights code". Consider >> for instance, a fundamentalist Islamic society. Lets apply principle 1. >> As a thinking member of that society I ask myself, "Would I like to have >> Judaism, or Christianity forced on me?" - "No", "therefore we can't impose >> Islam on other religious groups." > >However, a fundamentalist Islamic society doesn't necessarily believe >in principle 1. And since human rights are relative, or so you say, >what's wrong with the way they do things? You've missed the point. Their application of rights is inconsistent. In this case, some groups enjoy more freedom than others. Another perspective on the above principle is that "all groups should enjoy the same level of freedom". This is not the case as not all groups get to worship their favorite idols. Look, you could argue that the society has insufficient rights in order to insure health and happiness for the individual. You could argue that this society violates your definition of human rights. You could even argue that this society violates its own definition of human rights by applying a double standard to its citizens. But you can't argue that that this society is violating human rights *PERIOD*. The definition is nebulous and is based on that society. > Does a democracy have the right to dispose of human >rights? You say democratic consensus defines these rights. If so, >democratic consensus can define human rights in whatever manner they >believe. The trick of having a constitution helps to insure against the backsliding of human rights. But as I pointed out before, in every country in the world there is some consensus notion of what "human rights" are. In some countries, like the USA and Canada, these "rights" are written into a document and can be refered to for the defense of the individual. But you shouldn't view the Constitution (USA) or the Charter of Rights (Canada) as being mystical documents handed to us by God. These things were decided by men and are therefore subject to the fallibility (and whims) of men. To pretend that there is such a thing as an "absolute" human right is deluding yourself. What I had suggested previously was merely an acceptable definition of "human rights". You believe that freedom of speech is an absolute human right and therefore censorship is a violation of that right. I argue that freedom of speech is *not* a human right at all! The real value of free speech is in its worth to society. Without free speech a society is unable to identify and correct it's mistakes. Such a society cannot change gracefully no can it protect and assure uniform application of it's own defined rights. Free speech should therefore be pursued for its value to society and not for some nebulous antiquated idea that freedom of speech is a human right. Seen in this perspective, censorship of hate provoking lies has not thwarted the purpose of free speech. This law does not compromise the individuals right to speak out against injustice or political corruption. To blindly pursue freedom of speech merely for its own sake is to miss it's value entirely. The search for free speech is not like questing for the Holy Grail. There is no mystical purpose in its attainment. There are good practical reasons why we need it and it should be for these reasons alone that we support it. This appears to be a common problem. We have started to persue legal issues for their own sake and proven murderers get off on technicalities. Known criminals of all shapes and variety are free because the "letter" of the law is served while it's purpose has been long since forgotten. There is a saying from the middle east which seems particularly appropriate: "The law is a substitute for justice". When blindly followed to the letter, the law makes a poor substitute indeed. >> ... I am arguing that the Zundel business is not an instance of >> "political" censorship. The only credible case you could have for calling it >> political censorship is if you define all censorship to be "political" - then >> I might agree with you. ... >> >I'm glad we agree that Zundel was censored. (Worse, thrown in jail >for what he said.) This was never an issue. Ken Hruday University of Alberta
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/11/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 5-MAR-1986 18:59--------------------- >Posted by: decwrl!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!ken >Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB > >First; there is no such thing as "veriable" (variable) truth - either it's >true or it isn't. The trick is whether we can tell if it's true. If the >truth can be determined then this makes it "verifiable". If a statement >cannot be verified we give the speaker the benefit of the doubt and label >his/her statement as "opinion". People with opinions should not be censored. > There was a man named Galileo who published what he thought and we know now to be the truth. He was forced by the society to recant what he said because it was wrong hertical and would cause damage to society. I man named Corpernicus published a tract about the universe and how the earth revolved around the sun this book was banned because it was dangerous. It also had to be wrong because the bible said so. (even though it doesn't) I man was put on trial in the early part of this century in the US because he taught Darwinism. We all know that Creationism is the only truth tha can be taught are children. The other is a blatent lie by those athiestic humanist communistic destroyers of what is true. The beliefs of all God-fearing rightous people. The idea of protecting society from stopping people from telling their truths is dangerous. There have been far to many instances of this idea of protecting people against people and in the end it has done far more harm then good. If a man wants to say something is the truth that is his right. If what he says is bogus well that is the way it is. If the man tries to act upon what he says then society has the right to intervene but not until then. Brian Mahoney
ken@alberta.UUCP (Ken Hruday) (03/14/86)
In article <1611@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bartok.DEC writes: > > numerous excellent examples of the abuse of censorship > > Brian, your cases of Galileo, Copernicus, and the Scopes "monkey trials" are all excellent examples of the abuses and dangers of censorship. However, what you intended to prove by them is somewhat obscure. In fact, your examples seriously misrepresent the case and law, under which Zundel was charged. To recap his case we should recall that the prosecutor had to prove that the content of his pamphlets was false. In addition, it had to be shown that he was capable of knowing them to be false and that his intent was to arouse hatred against a particular group. The prosecution failing on any one of these points might have acquited Zundel. *If* any of the above cases could have been charged under this hate incitement law (and they couldn't have) then it should be clear that each of them would have been acquited 3 times over. It should also be clear that this particular law can only be "stretched" so far, thus it isn't a broad license for the government to censor anything as it chooses. Your three cases prove only that censorship has a great potential for harm and I have to agree that in nearly all cases it is harmful. But that doesn't mean that it is always harmful in all possible cases. Time for a digression. There appears to be a pattern in your examples; it is clear that all of them arise from persecution by a state based in religion. Not that religion is always the culprit. Rather, it happens when the government no longer serves the people. Whether the government serves God, the ideals of Marxism, or to further the supremacy of the aryan race, or even a dictator, abuse of human rights is bound to occur (whether or not there is a law or constitution that says it shouldn't). Yes, governments are bounded by laws - but it is also the case that governments make the laws. Censorship in the above cases is a symptom not the problem. Thus trying to prevent censorship does not address the real question, and would only give marginal comfort to the victimized citizens. In another vein, let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that it is wrong for someone to impose restrictions on civil liberties (namely your right to persue happiness and to freedom of movement)? Prisons are full of people who have had their liberties deprived them and this is all done in the name of "punishment" or "rehabilitation". Yet the constitution should guarantee them the right to live where they like and to come and go as they please. Clearly this principle has been compromised. Why? One answer is that these people had abused their freedoms by using them irresponsibly. Everyone should have "all" possible human rights but what happens when these rights are abused? What do we do then? I agree that the ideal society is one where there are no exceptions to human rights, but unfortunately, you need ideal people to form such a society. Until that day comes (I'm not going to hold my breath :-), we must occationaly compromise what we normally consider to be "human rights". Ken Hruday University of Alberta
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/17/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 14-MAR-1986 04:46--------------------- Parts of this I will cut out. I hop in my editing I do not cut anything important. >> >> numerous excellent examples of the abuse of censorship >> > Brian, your cases of Galileo, Copernicus, and the Scopes "monkey trials" >are all excellent examples of the abuses and dangers of censorship. However, >what you intended to prove by them is somewhat obscure. In fact, your >examples seriously misrepresent the case and law, under which Zundel was >charged. To recap his case we should recall that the prosecutor had to >prove that the content of his pamphlets was false. In addition, it had to >be shown that he was capable of knowing them to be false and that his >intent was to arouse hatred against a particular group. The prosecution >failing on any one of these points might have acquited Zundel. I was not tring to misrepresent the law if that is what came out I apologize. All I was trying to show was that it is very difficult I would say almost impossible to clearly and irrefutable say something is the truth and something is a lie. > > Your >three cases prove only that censorship has a great potential for harm and >I have to agree that in nearly all cases it is harmful. But that doesn't >mean that it is always harmful in all possible cases. > This is what I was trying to show and my point is that to even start allowing the government this power is starting on the road to trouble. > Time for a digression. I agreed with your digression. Censorship is a symptom of a problem but the problem will not go away because you censor. The problem will more likely grow like a cancer. > In another vein, let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that >it is wrong for someone to impose restrictions on civil liberties (namely >your right to persue happiness and to freedom of movement)? Prisons are >full of people who have had their liberties deprived them and this is all >done in the name of "punishment" or "rehabilitation". Yet the constitution >should guarantee them the right to live where they like and to come and >go as they please. Clearly this principle has been compromised. Why? One >answer is that these people had abused their freedoms by using them >irresponsibly. Everyone should have "all" possible human rights but >what happens when these rights are abused? What do we do then? > These people where arrested for actions and not thoughts. I feel there is a big difference between saying I want to rob someones house and actually doing it. As I stated (or think I did) the government has the right to stop someone from actually going through with their plans but not from expressing them. > > Ken Hruday > University of Alberta Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. It has started me thinking. I am still against the idea of the law but I am not as hardened as I was before. Brian Mahoney
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/20/86)
>> To recap his case we should recall that the prosecutor had to >>prove that the content of his pamphlets was false. In addition, it had to >>be shown that he was capable of knowing them to be false and that his >>intent was to arouse hatred against a particular group. The prosecution >>failing on any one of these points might have acquited Zundel. > Wasn't the prosecutor also supposed to prove that Zundel also advocated action (rather than just hatred) against the target groups? Or that actions against the target groups as a result of his pamphlets caused damages to members of those groups? (I don't know the answer) If those additional facts were provable in a U.S. civil proceeding, the result would have been a class action lible suit. It might not have sent Zundel to jail, but it would have made it hard to do business. If they were provable beyond a reasonable doubt, there might be a case for criminal lible.