|
November 10, 2008
A bad trend
Considering the nature of the debate in my previous post about gay bigotry, I'm glad we're not living in Germany. No, this is not another Nazi comparison; I'm talking about modern Germany, where it has apparently become illegal to accuse someone of anti-Semitism: In a tortuous ruling that threatens to have a chilling effect on discussions of "new" German anti-Semitism, the District Court of Cologne recently upheld a restraining order that forbids author Henryk Broder from describing the discourse of a virulent critic of Israel as "anti-Semitic" in a post on a popular German blog.While both parties are Jewish (and the writer accused of anti-Semitism had analogized the Israeli government to Nazism), according to the court's convoluted reasoning, accusing someone of anti-Semitism is defamatory: From the perspective of the average reader, the application of the concept "anti-Semitic" is especially grave and like hardly any other well suited to depreciate [the person] connected to it in the eyes of the public. This has to do with the terrible consequences that anti-Semitism has brought about precisely in Germany.But as the post's author John Rosenthal notes, the court held that even a truthful accusation could be defamatory. And of course, there are the usual double standards: According to the Cologne court's ruling, however, even a true statement can represent defamatory "abusive criticism," provided it is not accompanied by "sufficient" grounds. This obviously implies a sort of hyper-regulation of speech on the part of the German courts. Given, moreover, that the court has done nothing to specify the threshold for "sufficiency," the potential for arbitrariness in the application of this power is virtually unlimited. Broder himself, for example, has been accused by some of "Islamophobia." Will he now be able to obtain restraining orders against the authors of such charges?Of course not. That's because restrictions on speech are inherently political, and in politics the squeakiest wheels -- meaning the whiniest activists -- get the grease. Fortunately in the US, such political characterizations are not (not yet, at least) a suitable matter for the courts: Of course, it could be argued that what constitutes anti-Semitism is more a matter of interpretation or opinion than what constitutes child molestation or, say, plagiarism or other more typical subjects of personal defamation suits. But this is all the more reason why in a liberal democratic society it is not a suitable matter for the courts. In any case, if there is such a thing as "anti-Zionist anti-Semitism," then there is little room for doubt that the fulminations of Evelyn Hecht-Galinski on the "Jewish-Israeli lobby" constitute an example. The similarities between the latter and the morbid phantasms of the Nazis on the power of "international Jewry" are obvious for even just a minimally historically informed observer.It often bothers me that as censorship efforts tighten around the world, this country is becoming the last bastion of free speech. Yet at the same time this is happening, ever-larger numbers of citizens, indoctrinated as they are to think in terms of "hate speech" and group grievances, are clamoring for restrictions here. In 2002, a poll showed that nearly half of the American public believed the First Amendment "goes too far." Since then, the trend has not been good -- especially with younger people. While you might think that college students would be more supportive of the First Amendment than any other group, a 2006 study revealed that the number of college students who think the First Amendment goes too far has increased dramatically: ...students say they feel the First Amendment as a whole goes too far. In 2006, 45 percent said the First Amendment goes too far, versus 35 percent two years ago.That ought to worry everyone, because if young people don't appreciate the freedom they have, it doesn't bode well for the future. This is not to say that it's an easy thing to be accused of bigotry. I don't like it any more than anyone else, and just last night I spent quite a bit of time defending myself against a charge that I was anti-Christian, and anti-Mormon. This went back and forth, and that's the way free speech is supposed to work. Over the years I have developed a tough skin over these things, but this only makes me worry that part of the problem might be with young people who have been raised on a diet of "self esteem" -- to whom the slightest criticism gives rise to a sense of aggrieved entitlement. (Factor in identity politics, and a disagreement with an individual can become an attack on a group to which he belongs. Sorry, but ridiculing Jeremiah Wright or Pat Robertson is not ridicule of Christianity itself.) No one enjoys being called a bigot. But the idea that calling me a bigot should be illegal -- or that I should be able to file a complaint against the accuser -- fills me with horror. I hope it is not the way of the future. posted by Eric on 11.10.08 at 09:16 AM
Comments
We all develop personal bias due to experience and background. Hugh · November 10, 2008 10:44 AM A note on the word anti-semitism. There is a viewpoint called racism, and the viewpoint that stands against this is called anti-racism. If there is a viewpoint called "semitism", then the viewpoint that opposes this should be called anti-semitism. But that's not what you mean. The nicey-nice word for jew-hatred is antisemitism, no hyphen. The "ism" refers to the viewpoint of the "antisemite". Dom · November 10, 2008 11:55 AM Since students aren't being taught history anymore, it's not so surprising that they appear bound and determined to repeat it. What most Americans don't seem to understand is exactly how unique America is in history. The history of man is all about despots, wars, starvation and disease. I guess we're going to have to relearn that lesson. Veeshir · November 10, 2008 12:14 PM Dom, you may be interested in Dave Sim's Judenhass, which I blogged about right here at Classical Values. Dennis · November 10, 2008 09:34 PM Tolerance in mittel Europa: "You called that nice man a horrible Anti-Semite. Now pay up, you dirty Jew!" Trimegistus · November 11, 2008 09:27 AM 3309h0oh0ipt821a Delmar Clayton · November 12, 2008 07:54 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Leaving It To Obama
Reality-Based Rule? On the road Twenty-Five Million A Man At Ease Happy Veterans Day! And thank you, veterans! How to stop gay marriage (and set back the cause of gay rights) From Drug War To Real War A war over a right? Crushing the hope of change?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I would like to call you an anti-semite. Please wait while my lawyer contacts a judge to get a ruling giving me authority.
Aww, crap. I only have $300. Could you loan me a hundred? It's for a good cause and I'll pay you back Tuesday.