|
Best. Video. Ever. Best line of the clip: "Too many lazy old men doing evil things". Pure Gold.
As for the Americans wanting to ban this and succeeding, their tentacles reach far don't they. Not very surprising. And besides, when it comes to issues of free speech, the americans aren't as big on that as you think  Despite the fact that the First Ammendment protects free speech, it does so in all arenas of life except for TV and radio broadcasts. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) gets to control EVERYTHING that goes on the air, and censure is the rule of the day when it comes to that. Fines are applied all the time to TV or radio stations that allow broadcasts that violate certain asinine regulations established by the FCC, such as indecent exposure and vile language rules (see Janet Jackson and Howard Stern). So technically, this is merely yet another instance of the American government forcing their own laws down the throats of sovereign governments. Sound familiar?
Now with regards to the free speech issue, many things come up in this case and need to be discussed. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Americans applied no pressure whatsoever on the Norwegian government, and that the topic of whether this video should be banned or not was being discussed purely based on a sovereign country's own interpretation of Freedom of Speech and its limitations. What would your positions be?
Personally, I defend the freedom of speech of any individual, regardless of what that individual has to say, as long as it does not violate the inalienable rights of others. In other words, that individual has the right to say anything he wants, including to incite racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, and so forth, unless there is a direct threat towards another individual with intent of bodily harm, which would then violate his rights. So unless I state that I want to harm you, or kill you, and make a tangible threat in your direction, I should be able to state whatever I want. This is how I understand Freedom of Speech, and this is the how it's usually construed (at least in the US under the First Ammendment. I am aware that certain European countries have anti-racism laws, and I am completely against those).
Having stated the above, the question becomes: did that Norwegian group literally make a tangible threat to George Bush's life, or were they inciting others to violence against Bush (or the Americans for that matter). If it's the former, then their speech is NOT protected under Free Speech laws (as I undersatnd them), but if it's the latter, then it is, since incitment to violence is NOT considered a violation of inalienable rights. I tried to check out that website that was flashed twice during the clip with claims of having raised enough money to kill him (killhim.nu) to see whether it actually exists, and it didn't. Having said that, it might have, but was forced off the web. Now if they represented that website, and if indeed it existed, and if indeed it threatened to carry out Bush's murder, then although their speech could be protected under Freedom of Speech laws, it could also, and perhaps in not such a difficult manner, be interpreted as a direct threat to Bush, and thus as criminal. I'm still mulling this one over, and as much as I'd like to see Bush killed, I'm trying to interpret the Freedom of Speech Laws as objectively as possible.
|
