O diplomat of great nation Hybrid — contact: hybrid.diplomat «at» gmail.com

Comment of the Day

with 4 comments

The Hybrid Diplomacy ALWAYS welcomes insights, festive banter, and especially critical analysis in the comments section. Whenever someone calls out the HD for his sweeping overgeneralizations and/or major lapses in judgement (or compliments him on his ASTUTE analysis), he or she will be placed in the running for the COVETED prize of Comment of the Day.

As there were two AMAZING comments today, a committee was set up in true diplomatic fashion among the HD’s closest confidants and determined JUHA to have the Comment of the Day:

“While freedom of speech is an important right, the bulwark against fascism and just generally a good thing, it is however, not an absolute right, and never has been. There is a normative framework in place dictating what you can say and what you can’t, and there are certain things that simply do not fall into the category of freedom of speech.

The Islam debate is certainly one of those avenues of public debate that doesn’t necessarily need government regulation, but it cannot be unregulated either. There are views that are simply unacceptable in a liberal democracy, and do not fall within the category of freedom of speech. People definitely should be entitled to their views, but espousing them publically should not be an absolute right.

Wilders’ hate speech is a prime example of how certain people try to have their cake and eat it too. He has no problems banning the Quran and isolating Islamist movements from exercising their rights when it comes to freedom of speech (it’s not necessarily a bad thing). But then to turn around and play the freedom of speech martyr card? To use a colloquial expression, “Bitch, please.”” (Emphasis mine because that was legendary).


Written by hybriddiplomat

April 11, 2010 at 21:40

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “People definitely should be entitled to their views, but espousing them publically should not be an absolute right.”

    That’s entirely long. The concept of ‘free speech’ DOES have its limits, but they’re not based on the content of that speech. To use the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes example, “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

    Nevertheless, nothing is disallowed simply because it is disagreeable.There is no definition of ‘free speech’ that would allow such a thing to pass. And just because a view is “unacceptable” in a liberal democracy is no excuse for silencing it. That’s the whole POINT of free speech rights.


    April 11, 2010 at 22:46

  2. Wow, by ‘long’ I meant ‘wrong’. Freudian slip?


    April 11, 2010 at 22:47

  3. What is the law on that anyway, does ‘hate speech’ fall under ‘free speech’?


    April 11, 2010 at 23:12

  4. Depends where, of course, but I think in the US at least the guideline is incitement to violence.

    So for example, something like say, Stormfront, could say that “white people are far superior to black people and that the latter’s inferiority will be its downfall.” What they couldn’t say is “white people are superior to black people so therefore everyone should be murdering blacks.”

    It can be something of a fine line, though obviously that example is pretty clear-cut.


    April 12, 2010 at 02:18

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: