Umutcan ALIKAN 1

Umutcan ALIKAN- 21101269 ENG 101-06 INSTRUCTURE: Serap KATLAN 21 November 2012 Limitation of Freedom of Speech What are the differences between animals and human beings? Thinking and expressing themselves distinguish human beings from other animals (Timothy Garton Ash 1). So, sharing, receiving and participating in ideas and information are important parts of human rights which are inborn rights. In theory, as well as all human rights, freedom of speech is safeguarded by law in a democratic state. However, in practice, this right should be restricted by law because of hate speech which is defined, by Henry Frances in 2004, as bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group (qtd in Cohen-Almagor 215). Hate speech may result in intimidation and even death of targets and speechmakers, violating human rights, attempted disruption the unity and territorial integrity of the state also justify the limitation of freedom speech. First of all, attempting to spread hate speech is the most important issue about limitation of freedom of speech, because hate speech is the key point of both violating human rights and attempting to disrupt the unity and territorial integrity of the state. Henry Frances points out that there are lots of types of hate speech such as direct talk, symbols contained in parades, cross burnings, and, more lately, Internet Web sites. Hate speech always reflects a message of mediocrity, is usually directed against a member or member of historically oppressed groups, and is persecutory, hateful and degrading (qtd in Cohen-Almagor 215). Because of targeting people, spreading hate speech can cause chaos and it is also a threat for

Umutcan ALIKAN 2

human rights. Therefore, attempting to spread hate speech should be precluded, and people who attempt to disseminate hate speech should be punishable. There are lots of examples in history about sentences due to spreading of hate speech. For example, James Keegstra and Malcolm Ross are two teachers who denied Holocaust. They were prosecuted and they lost their jobs, because of Holocaust denial. In case of James Keegstra, he taught social studies, law, math and science. He brought his opinions about Jewish and Holocaust denial into the classroom. He reflected his opinions in classroom and affected his students. He strained truth in classroom. He expected his student to recite his opinions in class and on exams. If they did not accept and absorb his opinions, he gave them lower grades. He absolutely imposed his opinions on them. Therefore, although there was no Jewish person in town, his students had lots of hatred thoughts in their minds about the Jewish. They became close minded people. So in February 1984, the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) decided to dissolve his ATA license and advised the suspension of his license. Then in April, his license was cancelled, making it impossible for Keegstra to teach in Alberta. In case of Malcolm Ross, he was a modified resources teacher for language and math for grades from seven to nine at Magnetic Hill Junior High School in Moncton, New Brunswick, from September 1976 to September 1991. He denied Holocaust and claimed that the Christian faith and life style were under attack due to international conspiracy headed by Jewish. He published several books and pamphlets and joined public issues such as a television interviews. He announced his opinions about Jewish to the public and defended his ideas. He did not reflect his opinions in classroom. However, he published his books. Although he did not talk about his ideas in classroom, his students who were Jewish felt uncomfortable with the situation. Jewish students did not want to attend organizations held by him. Therefore, he lost his license due to his job and opinions (Cohen-Almagor 220-230). In their cases vital point is their students and students parents. They publicized their opinions which conveyed hate speech. Due to the fact

Umutcan ALIKAN 3

that they publicized their opinions, their students and students parents affected. Keegstras students hated Jewish although they did not meet any Jewish people. Rosss Jewish students were irritated by his opinions. Actually in Ross case, the most important point is age of his students. He taught Kindergarten to grade 8. Due to their ages, his students were easily affected by his opinions when they heard his opinions outside of classroom. As a result of these, Canadian Supreme Court denied Ross and Keegstra to spread hate speech. To conclude in this vein, there is another consequence of spread hate speech, namely violating human rights. Participating in social life and receiving education are important parts of human rights, but if hate speech publicize, these rights can easily be affected. For example, in case of Malcolm Ross, he was opposed to Jewish people. His Jewish student knew his view. So Jewish students did not want to participate in organizations were directed by him. For instance, although Yona Attis, the daughter of the appellant, attended the gymnastic competition at Rosss school, she felt scared and threatened while being there (227). It is proof that spreading hate speech can result in asocial behavior. If Yona Attis was not patient and tolerant, she might not want to attend the gymnastic competition, because of Ross. She preferred being at home to in school. She would get away from social life and school life. It could happen easily, because she was young. In early age, f people experience bad things, they can not handle easily. Her case is only a minor example. If hate speech is not limited, number of examples like this can increase. Increasing number of examples violates human rights which are specifically participating social life and receive education. In addition, the right of life is vital human rights. Hate speech may result in intimidation and even death of speechmakers and targets. For instance, Theo Van Gogh was a film director. He produced Submission which criticized the role of women in Islam. Submission contain lots of scene in which woman is naked when she performs pray. However, it is not appropriate in Islam. Also, in this film, he accuses Muslim of violence against women. He targeted Muslim and did not

Umutcan ALIKAN 4

respect Islam faith in his movie. Therefore, he was assassinated by Muhammed Bouyeri who is Muslim (Theo van Gogh (film director) 1). This example shows that targeted groups may respond to hate speech and this response can cause deaths. In addition, hate speech cause social segregation. Marginalization and subordination of targeted group is a purpose of hate speech. For example, Mslm Gndz, who is leader of the Aczmendi, attended a TV-debate. He defined contemporary democratic people in turkey as impious. He targeted social democrat and accused them. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment on the grounds of that incitement to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction based on religion (qtd in Voorhoof 1). He clearly discriminated between democrats and other people in Turkey. Due to his status he could easily affect followers of him. They intended democrats to harm. Another example is white supremacist organization namely Ku Klux Klan. They were white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration. They attacked dark skinned people and burned houses (Ku Klux Klan 1). They distinguished people as a black or white in their minds. So, black people did not feel comfortable and they did not feel that belong in country. As a result, subordination and marginalization of targeted groups would support discrimination in countries (Walker 1). Members of targeted groups can not feel belonging to their countries. They may want to establish a new country. In the end, these situations cause disruption the unity and territorial integrity of the state. It is also argued that freedom of speech has lots of functions and advantages. One of its functions is that discussion and consideration of a range of views precede decision-making process. Expressing and paying attention to different range of views make decision-making process better. Thus freedom of speech is important all decision making process at all level in society. Yet it is critical for government. A government which does not have any idea what citizens feel and think is in a dangerous position. If the government restricts freedom of

Umutcan ALIKAN 5

speech, there is a risk of destroying the imaginative instincts of its people. Freedom of speech is also important governments because when they are freely criticized, they have chances to reaction to answer unjust comments and criticisms about them. Moreover, if they pay attention to criticisms, they can realize their mistake. They have a chance to fix their mistakes. Therefore, their countries become more developed. Finally, political action is not possible without freedom of speech and no resistance to injustice and oppression is possible. (qtd in Cooray 1). Without freedom of speech election would become meaningless (Cooray 1). If nobody publicizes opinions, people start thinking as same as others. When there is no other political view election becomes meaningless. Also election is the key elements of democracy, so freedom of speech is also important for democracy. It supports democracy by supporting new ideas and helping countries to develop, because it creates more freely world and democratic system needs freedom. In conclusion, if speech conveys hatred, it should be limited due to protecting peace. Hate speech is the origin of problems. It causes discrimination, social problems, racism, and physical and psychological violence. These consequences result in threatening human rights, disruption the unity and territorial integrity of the state. On the other hand, if speech does not convey hatred, it can be totally free, because it can be the most useful thing in our lives. It can be important for all human being due to instinct of expressing ourselves. It can help governments when they defend themselves. Also it may support development of countries by making available information and supporting creating new views. Therefore, if speech is totally free, world become more livable place.

Umutcan ALIKAN 6

Works Cited

Ash, Timothy Garton. Internet Freedom. freespeechdebate.com. N.D. Web. October 2012. Cohen-Almagor, Raphael. Hate in the Classroom: Free Expression, Holocaust Denial, and Liberal Education. jstor.org. American Journal of Education. The University of Chicago. 11 December 2007. Web. 21 November 2012 Cooray, Mark. Freedom of Speech And Expression. ourcivilisation.com. 1997. Web. 21 November 2012 Ku Klux Klan en.wikipedia.org. N.D. Web. 21 November 2012 Theo van Gogh (film director) en.wikipedia.org .N.D. Web. 21 November 2012 Voorhoof , Dirk. European Court of Human Rights Case of Mslm Gndz v. Turkey. merlin.obs.coe.int. N.D. Web. 21 November 2012 Walker, Samuel. Hate Speech. enotes.com. N.D. Web. 21 November 2012