Before you all jump all over me: I do not support legal action against people who express vituperative opinions about one or another group, even the most vile utterances. Short of the most direct, immediate incitement to violence (“You must go out and kill Joe Smith right now”), I don’t think any form of speech should be actionable.
However, in this case we’re dealing with Europe. Europeans already lack the basic right to freedom of speech. If a citizen of the EU (or the UK, or Switzerland, or Norway) were to say, “I think all Muslims are evil, and should be deported immediately,” he could expect to be arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for his intemperate remarks.
So fair is fair. If you can be prosecuted for saying such things about Muslims, you should be prosecuted for saying such things about Christians or Jews.
Unfortunately, we all know that it never works that way. Muslims are the protected pets of the State, and may not be insulted. However, it’s open season on Jews, and especially on Christians. Such is the grim reality of life in Modern Multicultural Europe.
Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from the Flemish daily Het Nieuwsblad:
Jewish organization retains lawyer Sven Mary in the case against Herman Brusselmans
The European Jewish Association (EJA) is preparing a criminal complaint against Humo [Dutch-language Belgian tabloid] and the writer Herman Brusselmans. The organization wants to charge Brusselmans with incitement to murder and a hate crime. The media group DPG is also in trouble. The Jewish umbrella organization is employing the attorney Sven Mary.
In his controversial column, Brusselmans writes that “the image of a Palestinian boy screaming for his mother lying under rubble-his own girlfriend and son in mind” — makes him so angry that he wants to ram a sharp knife in the throat of every Jew he encounters.
EJA announced Tuesday that it is taking legal steps against Brusselmans because he was guilty of anti-Semitism in his column. On Thursday, EJA will come out with a more detailed statement on further steps. “EJA has decided to file a criminal case against Mr. Brusselmans for incitement to murder and a hate crime, as well as a criminal case against the media group, the owners, the board members, and the editor in chief,” it says.
The organization is looking at the legal options. There would be different ways to file a complaint: The complaint will reportedly be filed next week. Notable: The umbrella organization is being represented by the attorney Sven Mary. Among others, he was the lawyer for the father of Sandra Dia in the Reuzegom case and has a lot of experience with anti-racism legislation. Sven Mary will collaborate with the Brussels lawyer David Szafran and the legal service of EJA.
The equal opportunity institution Unia also announced it is filing a complaint against Humo and Brusselmans. Humo earlier refuted that the passage was an incitement to murder. “The statements of Herman Brusselmans were part of a satirical column, not from a journalistic article or an interview. For whoever reads the complete column, it is obvious that Herman did not literally mean the sentences,” it says.
Europeans never did have free speech. In the name of anti-nazism, they were convinced that nasty speech cannot be permitted. I had many arguments over the way America does it with my European friends.
And now, the hammer meant only for those nasty nazis has come down on their own heads.
There are 4 exceptions to the first amendment: yelling fire in a crowded theater, the immediate and credible incitement to harm (Madonna yelling about bombing the White House does not count), ruining somebody’s reputation with malicious slander, and … eh, it’s late, I forgot the 4th one. Maybe someone can fill in… Oh, I know. Treason. The last 2 seem to be mostly ignored these days, though.
That is incorrect. Even “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is in fact Constitutionally protected. Take a better look at Brandenburg v. United States; it’s the incitement of imminent lawless action that makes speech illegal, not merely clear and present danger. It’s bizarre that people still spout that false trope.
Hm. This is what I found:
the concept of “shouting fire in a crowded theater” originates from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s dissenting opinion in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States. Holmes argued that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a person who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater, causing a panic.
Freedom of speech is a concept too radical for Europeans to handle.
Just like a proper diet and exercise is too radical for most Americans.
Ah well
I prefer fat than full of rage that I cannot express
Today they silence the peoples voices, tomorrow, they shall hear the sound of rifles in response. Let it rain!