Entry 288, on 2006-02-21 at 20:35:04 (Rating 4, News)
Most people agree that freedom of speech is a good thing. But many people would also say that there are some things which people shouldn't be able to say. For example, its unfair for someone to make false negative statements about another person. But sometimes truth isn't an absolute thing. If someone has a theory which is contrary to commonly accepted "fact" is that a lie? And if someone uses deliberate hyperbole and satire for the purpose of humour, does that count as a lie?
The reason I ask these questions is because of two big news stories I heard today. The first is the story of the jailing of British historian, David Irving, who denies the Holocaust. The second is the continued controversy around a New Zealand TV channel's plan to screen the controversial "Bloody Mary" episode of the satirical cartoon program South Park.
Most of us would find the denial of the Holocaust to be a fairly unpleasant attitude to accept, but everything should be questioned, and if Irving wants to continue denying what the vast majority of people accept as true, why should he be jailed for it? Its just an opinion. As far as I know, he's not saying anything that would directly incite violence against Jews. What could be illegal about having an incorrect theory, even if it is related to such an unpleasant and controversial event?
My opinion regarding the South Park program should be obvious from previous blogs on the subject (I actually blogged about it it in relation to the Mohammed cartoon controversy before it appeared in the news). While some people reject it as crude humour designed to shock, that is unfair. I think it is genuine satirical humour, with a real message. Satire has an important place in questioning political and other beliefs. If satirists and other critics couldn't use material which might offend certain groups it would stifle their ability to make the points they want to. This would end an important source of political and social criticism.
Catholic leaders are encouraging people to boycott the TV channel, and its advertisers. I suppose this is better than rioting and burning embassies (like some Muslims did in response to the cartoons), but its still a form of unfair pressure against an organisation just for criticising their beliefs. Its as if religion should be above criticism - but it shouldn't. Everyone should be open to scrutiny, including the Catholic church.
Comment 1 (177) by V on 2006-02-21 at 23:08:48:
I'm personally repulsed by the concept of Holocaust Denial, but I defend David Irving's and Ernst Zundel's rights to express their beliefs.
I think if I loudly proclaim that you have no head I'm delusional and extremely annoying to sensible people, but it's only when I begin to incite violence against you (perhaps because of your headless condition) that I need to be imprisoned.
I'm more offended by an authoritarian body's attempt to keep me from hearing all that is being said, as a way to "protect" me, than I am by anyone's delusional ravings.
Thank you for another thought-provoking blog entry.
Comment 2 (178) by OJB on 2006-02-21 at 23:09:18:
Yes, that was basically what I was thinking. That we should allow any ideas to be expressed, even if we find them unpleasant.
The ironic thing is, that one of the objections we have to despotic regimes like Naziism is their suppression of free speech, and now some countries suppress that very right in relation to those regimes!
BTW thanks for your positive comment re my blog!
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE