Language learning | English » Bóta Gergely - Communication rights

http://www.doksihu Communication rights Written by: Bóta Gergely GIL/II 1 http://www.doksihu Contents: Amendment I., The Bill of Rights, and famous American sayings 2 Article 18., 19, Thomas Jefferson’s speech 4 Historical overview . 5 The Internet issue . 8 Limits of the free media . 11 Political communinication . 12 Public morals, public peace . 13 Hate speech . 14 Defending one’s honour. 21 3 http://www.doksihu „Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 1 Amendment I, The Bill of Rights 1 www.archivesgov 4 http://www.doksihu Some famous American sayings should show us how important the freedom of opinion, press and expression is. “The opinion of men are almost as different as their faces. The business of publishing has mostly to do with

men’s opinions. Most things that are printed promote some opinions or oppose other opinions. Publishers believe that when men have differences of opinion, both sides ought to be heard by the public. When truth and falsehood are both heard, truth will always conquer.” 2 – Benjamin Franklin “When the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” 3 – Thomas Jefferson President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. in his inaugural message to Congress, on January 6, 1941, declared that the United States looked forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms: I. The first is freedom of speech and expression everywhere in the world. II. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way everywhere in the world. III. The third is freedom from want everywhere in the world. IV. The fourth is freedom from fear anywhere in the world. 4 2 Special English Word Book, p.172 S.EWB, p172 4 S.EWB, p173 3 5 http://www.doksihu It is the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights adopted on December 10th, 1948 that best prescribes freedom of expression as a human right so far. “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. “ 5 Article 18 “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 6 Article 19 The fact that Thomas Jefferson, in his inaugural speech, mentioned the freedom of opinions and speech several times proves us the importance of these ideas. “We have passed through a hard year of bitter struggle between two political parties. We have shown the world that in America all can speak, write

and think freely. There may be among us those who want to end the union of the States, or to end our Republican government. Well then, let those men speak freely, without fear They are wrong . but America is strong enough to let them say what they wish. When men can think and speak freely, there is no danger to the nation. For those who do not agree with them also have the right to think and speak freely. The rights of man will be of the highest importance in this government. Information, 5 6 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, www.amnestyorgau Universal Declaration of Human Rights, www.amnestyorgau 6 http://www.doksihu knowledge and opinions must move easily and swiftly. We will support freedom of religion – freedom of the press - .” 7 Communication and expressing opinions are even-aged with humanity. Earlier thoughts, because of the lack of any media, reached only the ones present at the time and place and also enjoyed only limited publicity by means of manual copying.

In addition, understanding these thoughts and information supposes the ability of reading. The means of communication altered a lot in the course of time. The first step was the invention of printing in the 15th century. Freedom of speech didn’t appear right after this. But the first restrictions for making a free opinion emerged almost at once The archbishop of Mainz set up the first censorial commission of history in 1486. Censorship was in the early times the institution for preventing religion from harm, but from the 16th century censorship supervises not only theological writings but all written issues. It was in 1637 that the Star Chamber was created in England and it introduced stricter rules concerning newspapers and other ways of expressing opinion. It took a long time to get to 1689 when the Declaration of Rights ratifies the freedom of opinion in parliament. But only there, outside the parliament it still could not get through. Also in England as a next step the censorship

in advance disappeared and the number of newspapers started to spread. Then it was not yet real freedom because an author could have been “fined” afterwards, as well. Starting from Great Britain the debate reached the American continent, as well. The first appearance of the freedom of the press and opinion could be seen in the Bill of Rights in Virginia. In Europe it was worded in the Declaration of Civil and Human Rights. It also laid down the principle of freedom of speech and the press. That was a huge step towards the freedom of nowadays even if short after this Napoleon set censors to supervise all products of the press. With this move he aimed the rise of the controlled press Due to the revolutionary thoughts and the revolution in France, censorship became as strict as never before in Europe. This period was the rise of censorship The years of 7 S.EWB, p 162, p 163 7 http://www.doksihu rigidity was followed by the liberalism of the early 1800s. The Constitution of the

Belgian Kingdom in 1831 was a good sample for many other European fundamental laws concerning the supervision of the freedom of speech and press: “The press is free, no man should introduce censorship” 8. The thought of the free press turned up again accompanying the revolutions of 1848. As it is well known, on 15 March, 1848 the first products of free press were born in Hungary, as well. It is true that short after the revolution in Hungary the law about the press was set aside but the censorship in advance was also abolished and afterwards-censorship replaced it. A very important thought was added to the freedom of speech, opinion and press. That was that none’s opinion is to be limited until this limitation restricts someone else’s similar freedom. After the appearance of the written press and modern political publicity lawmakers started to deal with one main point, mostly among the freedom of expression areas, this was the freedom of the press. This means mostly the

restriction of political thoughts criticising for example the government. At the beginning of the previous century, the appearance of the new mass communication means, like television and radio, the exclusive rule of the written press ended and many things were changed. In 1914 the laws concerning the freedom of opinion were inspired again with the thoughts of liberalism. The first article of the new law on the press was: “Everyone has the right to diffuse an opinion through the press” 9. Unfortunately this law did not last long due to the World War Some special restrictive rules came into effect, like if someone wanted to sell some kind of newspaper on the streets, that person needed the permission of the prime minister. Some more radical measures were taken before and during World War II. For example, the laws against the Jews between 1938 and 1944. These laws ousted Jews from newspapers. This meant not only the breaking of the classical liberal idea of equality before the law,

but at the same time trampling underfoot the freedom of expression. The rate of Jewish journalists was not supposed to exceed 20 per cent in 1938. This number was 6 per cent later, and as a final decision, they were banned from that career. In 1947 the freedom of the press disappeared In 1949 the communist constitution granted the freedom of the press on the workers’ behalf. Since the early 1980s, the emergence of new broadcasting techniques had modified the old rules and had led to the creation of new channels, new programs and new 8 9 Halmai Gábor: A véleményszabadság korlátai, p. 22 1949/XX. tv, Constitution of the Republic of Hungary 8 http://www.doksihu services. Cable TV, local channels and telecommunications satellites were the first to spark off changes, but the major upheaval occurred with the arrival of direct broadcasting satellites which demolished audio-visual frontiers between European countries. Article 61 of the Hungarian Constitution, adopted in 1949,

provides anchorage for freedom of expression in the domestic legal order. Article 61 of the Constitution reads: “In the Republic of Hungary everyone has the right to freely express his opinion, and furthermore to access and distribute information of public interest. The Republic of Hungary recognizes and respects the freedom of the press.” 10 A majority of two-thirds of the votes of the Members of Parliament present is required to pass the law on the public access to information of public interest and the law on the freedom of the press. A majority of two-thirds of the votes of the Members of Parliament present is required to pass the law on the supervision of public radio, television, and the public news agency, as well as the appointment of the directors thereof, on the licensing of commercial radio and television, and on the prevention of monopolies in the media sector. Article 7 of the Constitution undertakes to harmonize domestic Hungarian law with the country’s obligations

under international law and Article 8 recognizes the inviolability and inalienability of fundamental rights. As such, these articles indirectly guarantee the protection of freedom of expression. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was ratified by Hungary in 1974 and was incorporated into the national legal order by virtue of Law Decree VIII of 1976. Hungary ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1992, and its necessary promulgation as law was ensured by Act XXXI of 1993. Ratified in 1995, both the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities entered into force in Hungary in 1998. The European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT) was ratified by Hungary in 1996 and it came into effect the following year. Hungary also ratified the Amending Protocol to the ECTT in 2000 (by tacit acceptance). The actual incorporation of the

ECTT into national law took place with the passage of Act XLIX of 1998 on the Promulgation of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. The firs document of the international law, dealing with the problem of the freedom of expression, was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948. The 10 1949/XX, Constitution of the Republic of Hungary 9 http://www.doksihu freedom of expression was mentioned in the 19th article. The American declaration in 1776 and the French one in 1789 had a big influence on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The European Human Rights Treaty protected one’s right to expressing an opinion and the freedom of information. At the same time the Treaty allows governments to regulate radio and television stations. These companies needed the authorization of the government. But governments had only the right to regulate the technical operation of a company. The states did not have the right to ban a radio station because of the

content it broadcasts. The 19th article of a treaty about political and civil rights, in 1966, also declared the freedom of expression and information and prohibited bothering anybody because of the person’s opinion. The Internet issue At the time of the 17th century civil revolution, the bourgeoisie needed the strong tool of communication to face the feudal rulers. Accordingly, they called for the protection of free journalism and emphasized the freedom of expression. This is the background from which the modern sense of freedom of expression emerged. As the bourgeoisie started to possess the means of production and power after the civil revolution, however, the freedom of expression for the people who did not have them lost its meaning. The freedom of expression was declared, but the press and publication that could deliver it fell to the hands of the power. Entering the 20th century, in particular, mass media controlled the press environment. As big press companies began to take

up the market, concentration problem in journalism took place. In response to this phenomenon, the UNESCO warned that international information order was being seriously distorted through the Mass Media Declaration in 1978. By this time, there raised an argument that freedom of expression is the same as communication right of free access to media and of equal use of it. Against this backdrop, the Internet was the media of the people. It was hailed as a medium that will enable true communication between human beings and will eliminate the problems of concentration or distortion of mass media. Thus, netizens at the initial stage contended unlimited freedom in the cyberspace as shown in the Cyberspace Declaration of Independence. The new communicational medium, the Internet started its long journey in the 90s of the previous century. The specific feature of the Internet is the almost complete freedom. Although there were some attempts aiming 10 http://www.doksihu at the supervision of

it, it is almost impossible to control. These attempts were made first in the United States, then in Western Europe, but two main features of the net made it difficult (if not impossible) to achieve any results. One of these features is anonymity. The other is that information coming through the Internet cannot be held up on borders as it can be done in the case of television and radio programs. Anonymity makes it impossible to identify the owner of an opinion. This makes it extremely difficult to ascertain the accountability. It excludes not only the tracking of the perpetrator of libel or insult, which was committed anonymously, but also redressing the offended copyright. Internet suppliers can be easily identified but they cannot be made responsible for contents appearing on their website, because they do not have the opportunity to verify them. This problem has technical difficulties Information has a feature of crossing borders. In the case of TV and radio programs this can be

limited, but not in the case of the Internet. So international regulation would be required, but that would mean that all nations and countries judge the freedom of speech through the Internet in the same way. And it is not like that One main problem for the international law would be how to restrain information of the Internet in a way that the freedom of expression is harmed as little as possible, still the contents that should be really limited are banned. Any kind of a restriction will bring along deprivation of the consumers from information. Many countries around the world are regulating the Internet according to general laws. Civil social groups contend that, as in published materials and books, direct regulations by the government should be limited to the minimum. They argue that it is enough for the writers themselves to take responsibilities based on the laws for the materials they posted on the Internet. A German filter program prevented users from opening a homepage dealing

with the problem of breast cancer because of the word breast. These kinds of programs search for undesirable words and phrases. It is likely that this time Hungary can make use of those “achievements” of the United States and of Western Europe, though they will reach us quite slowly. Homepages can be leased from Internet suppliers. But that is not unequivocal if the lessor or the lessee is responsible for the contents of the website, or if either of them is responsible after all. And the fact that the lessee is not obliged to reveal his/her identity makes the situation even more complicated. Otherwise, even if it is not very easy, it is not impossible for hackers to crack homepages, so the lessee might be 11 http://www.doksihu innocent concerning the content of the homepage. The almost complete absence of supervision in the case of the Internet raises a problem, namely that many people may misunderstand the meaning of free speech. It should be decided whether the Internet needs

special controlling, or such rules should be used as in other cases of free speech limitation. Very practical is the accepted practice, that Internet suppliers use self-control and self-filtering. But still in this case the users’ interest is somehow limited. They will not have access to as much information as they want and as they have the right to. And it is also true that besides self-filtering the government is still there in the control method. The punitive statute in Hungary is one part of Hungarian law that recognises the specific situation of the Internet. In 2000 the law modified the meaning of publicity. This means that from then electronic information is part of the great publicity. The Internet has brought on some changes in the concept of the copyright law. That means that the appearance of information on the screen is part of the public performance. The USA is called the home of unlimited free speech. Even though in 1996 the Communications Decency Act was adopted. This

act should have limited the use of telecommunication means for obscene purposes. The act was contested by the American Civil Liberties Union and it won. The Court of Pennsylvania classified the act unconstitutional. The explanation was that the Internet should be prevented from government rules that offend the freedom of the Internet, which enjoys the broadest freedom among all telecommunication means. The court also ascertained that concerning the freedom of speech the chaotic situation of the Internet is very useful. The Supreme Court approved the verdict of the Court of Pennsylvania. Since then a new act has been made from which the unconstitutional parts were taken out. Germany is much stricter in this respect. This means that they often ban the contents of extreme left or extreme right homepages. In German law the owner of the homepage is responsible for the contents appearing on the website in case the owner knows about it, but the practice is not clear. In a case in Munich a

supplier, the subsidiary of Compu-Serve, an American company, was condemned because of pictures of pornographic nature that appeared on the website. But as the supplier did not have the opportunity and means to control the contents he was absolved. That judgement might have been the first step of a new, less strict Internet regulation in Germany. 12 http://www.doksihu On May 22, 2000, the French court ruled that it was illegal that Yahoo!, the Internet portal site, auctioned Nazi products, fined them, and ordered to prevent local users from connecting to this site. The court explained Yahoo! violated the French law that prohibits selling racist products by selling such Nazi legacies as medals, guns, and gas carriers that were used to kill Jews in the death camps. Yahoo! then brought this case to its home state, asking the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California, for a summary judgement against the order, and in next November the court granted Yahoo! the

judgement, claiming that the French had had no ground regulating constitutionally protected free speech. This case raised a lot of disputes regarding jurisdiction matter and the reality of the order to cut French users’ access to the site. But it is worth reviewing this case in the respect of the scope of limitation on the freedom of expression. Is a slandering speech at black people freedom of expression or racial discrimination? Is a flaming at women freedom of expression or violence? As more and more hatred sites like ‘white supremacy’ are popping up on the net in the current resurgence of neo-conservatism, the issue of discrimination is getting serious. One thing is clear: the expressions discriminating and excluding minorities fall into the category of intrusion of human rights and discrimination. Limits of the free media The freedom of communication is not absolute. It does not matter how stressed right of ours it is. The meaning has changed over the decades and it is not

the same in different legal systems either. Only after investigating a government’s opinion about not really welcome ideas can we decide how strict a country’s law is. We can say that governments will have to take more and more risks while trying to defend national or personal interests against opinions. There are four known interests that are to be defended in a democratic legal system. The first is the interests of the state This means defending the constitutional order of a country, the outer and inner safety of a country, defending dignitaries of a state and also of the national symbols. It is very usual when political communication gets into trouble with these interests. The second is the interest of social classes. They should be defended against opinions that are discriminatory because of one’s group, religion or sex. This is called hate speech The third group is defending the whole society. Some opinions get in conflict with public morals and public peace. The fourth

group is the defending of own interest, 13 http://www.doksihu above all the defending of one’s honour. This includes one’s secrets, personal rights and a company’s right of having business secrets plus the right of having a good reputation. This all does not mean that these interests are preferred over the freedom of expression. A limitation is proven if someone has suffered such harm that really should be penalised. There is no such message that could be limited just because of the content, without considering the context. Many legal systems allow limiting political communication only in very special and justified situations. Political communication A democratic country has a very important feature, the unlimited disputability of public affairs. Because of this the interest of the state is very rarely above political opinions. While in a non-constitutional state like Hungary was before the change of regime the law limited first of all the political communication. A

constitutional state may also limit the people’s freedom in war if the interest of the country needs it. But it happens very rarely that the law considers the interest of the state more important than the freedom of the expression. Not even in serious looking situations, as it was in the USA during the war against Vietnam or the Gulf war or recently the war on Iraq. The protests against the war in Vietnam were serious judgements on the government. Four men in 1968 as a protest against the war burnt their draft on the stairs of a Boston court. They were found guilty because at that time it was constitutional sentencing someone because of annihilating a draft publicly. Then the adjudication of a school authority forbidding their students wearing a black arm-band as a protest against the war was found unconstitutional. Then a protester in the building of the court wearing a notice “Fuck the draft!” on his jacket was found also not guilty. Even a person’s opinion who wants the

president to die cannot be limited or fined according to a decision of the Supreme Court in 1987.The government has to be neutral towards the ones judging the owners of the political power until the ones encourage others to do illegal things. I think this all makes us think that the USA is something everyone should follow. But I wonder how much American people know about either the war in Vietnam or the war in Iraq. Not more than the government wanted them to. There is such thing like military censorship, and I guess we can imagine that reports about wars are manipulated. I mean the overestimating of the capability of the Iraqi army or the lessening of the number of civilian casualties. But 14 http://www.doksihu we can understand that, for example, the US government will not tell us through television what losses the troops have suffered. There were some news saying that an American helicopter had crashed. The American side told people that it fell down due to some kind of technical

problem the other side told that they had shot it down. Which statement is true? I guess American helicopters do not come down too often by accident. The German fundamental law limits political speech if it endangers the interests of the country. Looking back on German history it can be said that there is more danger in tolerating fascist opinions in Germany than in the United States. In Germany political opinions do not have the absolute freedom and the priority over the national interest. Public morals, public peace These interests are so unimportant that they barely need any kind of defence. When public peace is offended, the situation is very difficult because the court will have to find out if an opinion has hurt at least the bigger part of the society, so a limitation is required. In these cases there is no direct afflicted person, and this makes the situation very difficult. Defending public morals has a preventive role The aim is, for example, to avoid anarchy. We speak about

offending the public morals when an opinion is not only an opinion but the aim is to hurt someone’s feelings. The Hungarian law allows limitation of the Internet in order to prevent public morals from harm. In the Hungarian criminal code under the headword spreading rumours we can read that “if someone spreads unreal facts or real facts twisted that can harm public morals commits offence and is punishable with one year of imprisonment, public work or fine.” 11 The sentence can also be three years, if the offence was committed in war situation. After the change of the regime there were only two significant cases. In the 90s the leader of a rightist party stated in a television interview that the military police and men of the National Security Office executed an ambush against the centre of the party. The state attorney’s office charged him because of spreading rumours. The district court stated that even if the case interested the press for days and stirred up public opinion it

was not able to harm 11 1979/IV, Btk. 15 http://www.doksihu public morals so the politician was acquitted. The other case was when a bank clerk had sent e-mails throughout the country about the bad economic situation of the bank and encouraged people to withdraw their money from the bank. And people did it Later it turned out that the bank was really in a difficult economic situation. The bank clerk was also acquitted. There are some cases, however, where we start to think about whether the freedom of speech should really be so uncontrolled. Let us just think about a soccer match. FTC vs MTK What if the green-and-white side starts telling rude things about Jews as it many times (always) happens. Hell breaks loose. It is true that in this case we cannot speak about a simple opinion It is something else. “Fans” only shout these things just to heckle the other side’s supporters. This is a special situation in Hungary because here people go to a match just to make fuss. In other

countries fans may only shout rude words to fire their players and create a good atmosphere during the game. Hate speech Such speeches belong to the group of communication that might be guided by hate or prejudice, and tells an opinion about a race, religion, ethnic group or sex and arouses hate against these groups. Someone using the word “nigger” may be punished if the person said this word just because of causing harm to another human being and if the word had no real content and if no other word or expression could have been used instead of this. Hate speech, as Americans call it, is a troubling matter for people who believe in free speech. It is abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing And it may lead to violence, hatred or discrimination; and it kills. The USA, as the least censored society in the world, has been holding firmly to the first Amendment and to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has meant the attempts to make provisions

against hate speech have almost all been disallowed by the Supreme Court. International law appears more contradictory Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that “ everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, though this is subject to restrictions necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others’ or for the protection of public order, or public health or morals” 12 But Article 20 of the same Covenant states that, “ any advocacy 12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, www.archivesgov 16 http://www.doksihu of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be prohibited.” 13 None of these statements have stopped the fierce debate on that difficult borderline between free speech and equality of respect. Free speech is thought of as sacred to a democratic society, as

the freedom upon which all others depend. But in a world where the effects of speech that foster hatred are all too visible, there are two difficult questions that must be asked about the defence of free expression: At what cost? And at the expense of whose pain? It is, of course, dangerous to suggest the possibility of more censorship. The slippery slope argument – if we can censor this, what is to stop someone else censoring that? – is hard to argue against. Censorship can kill and maim, for when people draw a cloak of secrecy over their actions, gross abuse may happen with impunity. In the United States hate speech is typically defended as the price society has decided to pay for safeguarding free expression. Historically, perhaps the most famous defence of the right to express hate occurred in the case of Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, when a US neo-Nazi group tried to march on a public street in a community populated by many Holocaust survivors. The courts affirmed their right to

do so, basing their judgement on the First Amendment. Such a ruling, they believed, was ultimately to the benefit of racial and other minorities, protecting their right to express their own views freely. Nevertheless, hate speech and censorship continue to have a troubled relationship. A famous campaign to outlaw pornography was based on the view that pornography is in effect hate speech: it treats women as sexual objects and subordinates them in a vile way to men. Though the representatives did not succeed in persuading the US courts, the Canadian legislature did introduce a severe censorship law. But the first authors to be banned under the new Canadian statute were not the ones these feminists had in mind. They were prominent homosexual authors, a radical black feminist, accused of stirring up race hatred against white people and one of the feminists who started this all. Liberals who had warned against the dangers of censorship felt vindicated. Censorship backfires: the biter gets

bit The powerful and painful paradox of laws against hate speech is that again and again they have been turned against the very people we would see as the victims of that same hate speech. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, laws against defamation and insult were used to persecute critics of the Communist regimes. In Turkey the law was used against Ismail Besikci, a Turkish scholar, for his writings on the human 13 www.archivesgov 17 http://www.doksihu rights abuses against the country’s Kurdish population. The South African laws against hatred under apartheid were used systematically against the victims of the racist policies of the state. Nevertheless, in the 1980s, in the United States, the home of free speech, a new form of censorship was born on college campuses. Alarmed at verbal attacks on women and minority students, some universities introduced so called speech codes, forbidding remarks that were sexist or derogatory of a particular race or religion. All the

great battles for extending liberty in the United States – antislavery, anti-segregation, rights of women – had involved parallel battles for the principle of free speech. Yet here were the same kind of people who had affirmed these civil rights traditions suddenly saying openly they thought free speech was not an absolute right but a contingent and relative one – that speech must be restricted for the protection of vulnerable groups who were the target of hate speech. And with these codes the angry and often tiresome debate on “political correctness” was born. Political correctness has been pilloried and argued over for more than a decade now. It is all too easy to see how absurd some of its preoccupations are, though it had a sort of utopianism about it, and a touching, if rather authoritarian belief that behaviour, if properly conditioned, will improve. The problem with the ideal of political correctness is that, like so many censorship, it can turn so easily against what

it is meant to protect, encouraging everyone to be on guard against everyone else. Resistance to political correctness and its censorship came in a variety of forms Free-speechers such as the American Civil Liberties Union offer hard educative and political work as an antidote. They outlined eight steps to ensure that all students may participate fully in campus life, including the adoption of affirmative action, and courses in the history and meaning of prejudice. “Free speech is what makes people feel human, makes them feel their lives matter: fair democracy requires that every competent adult have a vote in deciding what the majority’s will is. And it requires further, that each citizen have not just a vote but a voice: a majority decision is not fair unless everyone has had a fair opportunity to express his or her attitudes or opinions or fears or tastes or presuppositions or prejudices or ideals, not just in the hope of influencing others, though that hope is crucially

important, but also just to confirm his or her standing as responsible agent in, rather than a passive victim of, collective action. The majority has no right to impose its will on someone who is forbidden to raise a voice in protest or argument or objection before the decision is taken. The temptations to make exceptions to the principle – to declare that people 18 http://www.doksihu have no right to pour the filth of pornography or race hatred into the culture in which we all must live – may be near overwhelming. But we cannot do that without forfeiting our moral title to force such people to bow to the collective judgements that do make their way into the statute books.” 14 (Ronald Dworkin) In 1993, at the time Dworkin was writing his defence of free speech, Umberto Eco was one of the 40 European intellectuals who publicly called on all Europeans to be on their guard against the manoeuvres of the extreme right. In an interview he says: “In order to be tolerant, one must

first set the boundaries of the intolerable.” 15 What in his view was intolerable? “I see nothing shocking – he went on – in a serious and incontrovertible work of scholarship establishing that the figure for genocide of the Jews by the Nazis was not 6 million but 6.5 or 55 million What is intolerable is when it becomes a message suggesting that if a few less Jews than we thought were killed, there was no crime.” 16 What Eco and his fellow signatories were particularly disturbed by was the extent to which dangerous ideas on the Right, including racism, was becoming commonplace – and newly seductive. And it is for just such reasons that it is essential to continue this difficult debate over hate speech. At the end of the Maastricht summit in December 1991, the European Union’s Council of Ministers issued a condemnation of racism and xenophobia, observing that manifestations of fascism and xenophobia are steadily growing in Europe. The report also comments on a paradox of

history: that racism increased as democracy spread through the postCommunist world. Free speech advocates claim there is little connection between hate speech laws and the lessening of ethnic and racial violence or tension. They argue that what is needed is more, rather than less, attention to the ideas of racial and religious superiority; that they must be confronted to be understood; that dialogue and democracy are more effective tools in understanding the anatomy of hate than silence; and for that reason, freedom of expression is necessary. Though laudable in principle, it is arguable that these views lack force in the face of much of 20th century history. They perhaps require us to believe too simply in the power of democracy and decency and above all rationality; in the ability of a long, slow onslaught on racism to have an effect; to believe in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, that there is always progress, however slow. At the end of our century, we have once again

in Europe been faced with an outburst of hatred and destruction based on 14 15 Ronald Dworkin, www.conservativeforumorg www.conservativeforumorg 19 http://www.doksihu racial, political and religious differences, which has all but destroyed a country, at least temporarily. It is just half a century since the Holocaust If that terrifying monument to the dark power of hate speech failed to alter consciousness constructively, what are we to say about the liberal belief in the human capacity to evolve morally? In the face of such enormities the political correctness debate has rather muddied the waters, diluting the wider implications of what hate can produce. For the most dangerous threat behind hate speech is surely that it can go beyond its immediate targets and create a culture of hate, a culture which makes it acceptable, even respectable, to hate on a far wider scale. Such a culture of hate is not easy to define, and does not necessarily have one trajectory, but its evolution is

evident in the circumstances surrounding some events in recent history. On 4 November, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of Israel, was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a 25-yearold law student. But what part was played by rightwing Israeli radicals chanting, Rabin is a traitor!, Rabin is a murderer! at Likud rallies? Or by placards showing Rabin’s features overlaid with the thin black circles of a rifle target? Or by the mainstream Israeli rabbinical leadership, who for months before the assassination has questioned the Jewishness of Rabin’s land-for-peace policies, and solicited the learned opinions of their colleagues around the world as to whether the abandonment to Palestinian control of West Bank territory divinely promised to the Jews might merit the death penalty. Only one leading rabbi, Yoel Nun, spoke out loudly against killing. He was denounced by some of the other sages, even had his life threatened, and was forced to resort to an escort of bodyguards to protect himself.

Words can turn into bullets, hate speech can kill and maim, just as censorship can. Is there no distinction to be made between the words of those whose hate speech is a matter of conviction, however ignorant, deluded or prejudiced, and the hate speech as propaganda, the calculated and systematic use of lies to sow fear, hate and violence in a population at large? One has only to run through the newspapers of the former Yugoslavia to find examples of hate speech as propaganda. In 1987 the Serbian newspapers published a photograph taken by a Belgrade reporter in Prekale, Kosovo, a Serbian province with a majority Albanian population. Under the headline, The mother from Prekale, it showed a Serbian woman working in the field, surrounded by children. A gun hung from her shoulder She needed the weapon, the papers revealed, to protect herself and her children from Albanian terrorists, who were 16 www.conservativeforumorg 20 http://www.doksihu torturing and killing Serbs and raping their

wives and daughters. The photograph attracted a lot of publicity, and shocked the whole of Serbia. Hundreds of similar photographs and newspaper articles, hours of TV programmes with news of the persecutions of Serbs in Kosovo resulted in nation-wide terror and hatred of the Albanian Kosovans. A few years later, the photograph was revealed to be a clever fake, set up by the reporter who had himself supplied the gun on the woman’s shoulder. By then it was all over The propaganda – one can find similar examples from all the protagonists in the war, though the Croats and Serbs seem to have been the masters of this sordid craft – had done its work. “When the homeland is at stake, I am prepared to lie!” –a senior Croatian journalist bravely affirmed. “I feel no shame in lying if it is in the interest of Serbia and the Serbian people.” – said the chief editor of Belgrade Television. “If it’s necessary for Croatia, I’ll lie” – said one of the leading commentators

of Vecernij List, the Croatian daily with the highest circulation. Four years on, no one on any side has any doubt as to the part played by the media in fomenting the war. One more thing still has to be added, that hate speech not only kills but sells at the same time. It is business for TV broadcasters, it is business for the neutral people working in the media, who only intervene opinions. The Germans think about the freedom of speech in a different way. They are stricter than the Americans. Even in Austria rules are quite strict In 1945 the Nazi party was banned. Anyone aiming at the rebirth of national-socialism could have been sentenced to imprisonment from five years to twenty years or even to life imprisonment. It is also punishable when someone disclaims the Nazi war crimes or wants to create the impression that they were not as serious as it is thought or even agrees with them. Of course, only when the person commits a thing like that so that many people can get to know about

it, through television, radio or the Internet. A reason can be that such opinions are almost perfect to harm public morals and that people live together in peace. As Jean Paul Sartre said that: “Anti-Semitism does not belong to the opinions that are defended by the freedom of opinion. It is not an opinion after all. Firstly it is addiction” 17 The Nazi genocide is a historic fact and as such it does not need demonstration. What should be the appropriate way instead of harassing the not-welcome opinions? Prevention might be one. It is quite important that the members of a society learn as much about the Holocaust as possible. Knowledge is the best weapon against the mentioned not welcome opinions. But 17 www.valourandhorrorcom 21 http://www.doksihu there is another thing, namely that the people on the other side have the right, too, to tell their opinion. We should listen to both sides and it is then our task to find out who is right. Our duty is not to punish anybody because of

a false opinion, but to convince him that he is not right. 26 July, 2001 László Bognár, representative and vice president of MIÉP, on a press conference told his opinion about the “merger” of Fradi and the Fotex company. He qualified it as an anti-national act. He said that Fradi, especially the soccer club, was a national symbol. It was not only the team of a district but the team of all average Hungarians. He also mentioned that the supporters of the club are cheated and betrayed because the new owner, the Fotex Plc. is also the owner of MTK, that is connected in the average person’s mind to the Jewish upper class. A greedy and shameless business group, that has nothing to do with FTC or with the Hungarians, had grabbed the club. The representative also mentioned that MIÉP condemns this anti-national act and requests all supporters to express their sorrow with a green and white band tied with a black band and to protest against damaging the club. A journalist asked him why

it was anti-national if the Fotex Plc. bought the club? He referred to a sociological study. In this case we have to think of the opposition of the average Hungarian man’s identity, the real Hungarian man, and these foreigners, members of the upper middle class supporting MTK. He also added: while FTC supporters look on themselves as simple people of the nation, the people “above” them are the Jews. After this speech nothing had been done The state attorney’s office said that they would not do anything until they received a denunciation. The prosecutor told the news that a simple interview was not enough to start an investigation in the case. The Attorney General is supposed to take care of the people’s right and has to take steps in time if the country’s law is offended. But nothing was done in this case even if later the awaited denunciations arrived. But if every time the word “Jew” is said, and not in the accepted context, we could burn every issue of the Magyar

Nemzet. We can remember the case of the Tilos Radio. On 11 January three or four thousand people were protesting against a statement of the Radio’s presenter. He said: “I would exterminate all Christians.” 18 The demonstrators burnt an Israeli flag After the police had investigated the recorded TV broadcast and pictures of the Magyar Nemzet they found three suspects. The suspects were not taken into custody A 18 www.nepszabadsag-onlinehu 22 http://www.doksihu process was started because of sedition against the public. Most of the people did not or still do not know the whole truth. It is true that the presenter said rude things like: “Fuck! I could not live together with Christians. I would exterminate all!” This is the part what is known by most of the people. After saying this the presenter excused himself. He said right after the rude thing : “That was kind of rude” Plus the man was drunk. He was fired at once Maybe that was not as a serious case as some thought

then. Christians were stunned because this time it was them who were told rude things, and not the Jews who are usually told rude things by them. Defending one’s honour Most of the legal systems and the international law allows a much wide-spread limitation in this aspect because of the stressed situation of personal rights that are main points of all constitutions and laws. Opinions offending personal rights reach the public when they are about well-known people. They can be dignitaries of a country, actors, scientists, artists. Their life is not really private The public knows many things about them “thanks” to the press. But they have to be more “opinion resistant” than average people. Opinions offending their honour cannot be so easily limited as in other cases. After the change of the regime in Hungary it was a main point of view that inviolability and that the dignitaries could not be offended should come to an end. In this area Hungarian, American and other laws are

very different For example in the United States the freedom of speech has a privileged position over the state or personal interests. Public affairs are debatable almost all over the world, so it is the judging of politicians, well-known persons, but not in Hungary. The American way is not accepted here. We are much closer to Germany in this aspect. Looking back on its history, Germany cannot afford too much of freedom In Hungary a man denounced Géza Hofi because of libel. In a performance titled ‘Pusszantás mindenkinek!’ Hofi announced an opinion that offended the average Hungarian’s honour. The denouncer saw the case like this The court could not cope with the charge because there was no crime committed. The opinion of the court was that the artist often uses satire to make fun of Hungarian VIPs or the Hungarian 23 http://www.doksihu average man. Furthermore, the offended person (if there is any at all) cannot be identified. Still it can be said that personal rights are in

danger Most of the American and European websites ignore international regulations about giving out data. Homepages do not defend personal rights as much as they ought to and even laws or restrictions do not help much. More than two-thirds of the homepages deal with collecting personal information about users besides their other functions. Only very few give the opportunity to consumers to delete or change information they have given to some Internet suppliers. And there is even less that grants the opportunity to users to decide if they allow the supplier whether to hand out personal information to a third party or not. According to Consumers International, a consumer protective organisation, regulations that are adopted by most governments are not enough in order to defend data collected on the web. While defending personal data is a declared Human Right, many homepages collect detailed information about consumers without any reason. Consumers International thinks that governments do

not do everything so that citizens could see how their personal data are used. In this area America is not really ahead of Europe. Even if there are rules about handling personal data there are only a few who take these regulations seriously. Consumers International raised the attention of governments to deal with some highlighted points. Thy should give the opportunity to users to supervise the use of data It should be declared that these pieces of information are collected and stored just as long as they are needed as for the original aim. Make it possible for users to reach, modify and delete information. Information about users should be stored and sent on in a safe way. They also reminded governments to set up control boards that can deal with problems occurring, can sanction the ones who do not keep to the laws. There are some special situations when defending the human rights is not needed. There are, for example, the reality shows. The men and women appearing in these kinds of

shows refuse to have personal rights. I wonder if the contract they have to sign is constitutional I guess it is not. They do not have any privacy for some time Nevertheless, they rather give up some of their fundamental rights in order to become famous. And that is worth it, otherwise they would not do it And they do not even think of charging anybody because that person said something rude about them. This is propaganda for them. The more they are on screen the more famous they will be, the more money they will earn by allowing people to offend their honour. But it is not only these people who do not care much about their rights. Sometimes it is 24 http://www.doksihu good to be on screen for politicians, as well. It does not matter if they are not always the “good guys”. One thing is for sure, we should forget about regulating free speech. In artistic materials absolutely, but also in the average person’s opinion. Tending towards the USA is not a really good idea. We should

not copy the way they teach, they learn or think about the freedom of expression. Children should be taught what is real and what is only fiction, then we would not need to ban some TV broadcasts or Internet sites. Banning some artistic erotic, violent or sarcastic materials means peace for one part of the people but it means the deprivation of others from information. So the best would be to leave everyone express an opinion, it does not matter if it is rude, it does not matter if it harms someone’s feelings. It is true that sometimes it can end up in a war, for example, but let us just imagine that the American president, George W. Bush says: we only want to make peace in the Middle East. It is just one thing that it would be a lie, the other thing is that this would surely offend the feelings of people in the Middle East, and the next target could be the Empire State Building. The American president may not even recognise that he has told something that harmed someone’s

feelings, maybe he believes in what he had said, yet his statement could trigger a war. So let everyone have and express an opinion! 25 http://www.doksihu Bibliography: Halmai Gábor: A véleményszabadság határai, Atlantisz (1994) Halmai Gábor: Kommunikációs jogok, Új mandátum (2002) Sajtószabadság és személyiségi jogok, szerk. Halmai Gábor Special English Word Book, Voice of America (1987) Sári János: Alapjogok, Osisris (2000) 26