Well, here's a little reminder for us that despite the social laws we break by saying things like "Bush is a criminal" there are no actual laws in the US stopping us from saying things like "the holocaust didn't happen" and "here's a red star on my shirt because I'm a commie" even though both things are going to be disagreeable to people.
Of course, I'm not trying to deny the holocaust--but there shouldn't be anything illegal about being ignorant or stupid or even wrong. I'm jumping ahead a bit. According to [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700583_pf.html|an article] at WaPo a British historian called David Irving was arrested in Austria recently for breaking their "Holocaust Denial" law. Seriously--it's illegal to deny the holocaust in Austria.
Meanwhile, an article from Reuters.com over at CNN.Netscape.CNN.com (don't blame me, it's their URL) reports on a guy in Hungary who wore a red star on his person to a political demonstration two years ago. He was tried and convicted of wearing the star which was banned as a communist symbol after Hungary "threw off" communism back in 1989.
Now, I'm no commie nor am I a holocaust denier--but do you know how many people you'd have to arrest for these types of crimes in the US? Loads of people still believe (as stupid as it is) that the Holocaust was trumped up, made up, or simply overblown. In America, we believe that it's their right to be as dumb as you want to be.
I mean, think about what would happen if Austrians took the "Holocaust Denial" to the next degree. Suddenly, being wrong or being an idiot would be illegal. Where would we draw the line then? Being wrong or being stupid? While in theory, banning both sounds like a great idea, who decides who's right and wrong? Smart and stupid? It's got positively Orwellian ramifications. There's also the religious aspect of laws that ban certain themes of speech.
If you're Christian you believe that God gave ever human on Earth free will. By legislating things like swastikas, red stars and words like "I deny the holocaust happened" we take away our right as humans to truly exercise that free will.
Really, what's the strength in doing the right thing if you're going to go to jail for doing the wrong thing? Sure, certain things like murder and theft need these kinds of threats to stop people from going totally sociopathic but simple acts of what you express? We, in America, are supposed to believe that we can say almost anything we want and not have to suffer for it. Despite the things I usually write about, this is still the case--well, socially, this isn't, but that's for another blog post.
However, there is some freedom of expression I don't think is cool. This is the right of freedom of speech guaranteed corporations. Whether you're Christian or not, I think it's generally safe to say that you probably agree that corporations are not living beings. Therefore it's safe to say that God did not give them free will. So why does the law of many different lands grant corporations many (if not all) of the same rights as individual humans?
The list of examples of how corporations abuse this "right" would go on for a very long time. However, I am reminded of this type of abuse by two recent stories in the news.
First, there's AOL's attempt to "advertise" their new chatbots on their instant messaging service. [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_AOL_IM_Buddies.html|an article] from AP.org available at SeattlePI.com reports on how AIM upon signing in to their AIM accounts, users were greeted with a notification about these new chatbots that will give you movie listings, gift ideas, and more. However, that wasn't all they did--AOL added these chatbots to your buddy list automatically. The catch? Everyone got these messages and everyone had the 'bots added to their buddy list--there was no way to opt out and what was worse was that you got them more than once.
I got the message twice even after I deleted them from my buddy list. Why is this an abuse of the freedom of speech? Well, basically because we didn't ask to be contacted about these services. We sign up to chat with our friends--not get services. There's the rest of the Web for that.
Granted, this isn't much of a big time abuse, but it's still an example of it--so don't accuse me of making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm just sayin'...
[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1321756|Another article] from AP.org, this one available at ABCNews.com reports on how DishTV has essentially bought a town for ten years. That's right, you can now visit Dish, Texas.
In exchange for a decade of free DishTV, Clark, Texas has renamed itself Dish. Now, sure, the legal voters who live in the 55 homes in Dish, Texas, all voted on this and all agreed to do it--and that's fine. But this smacks of corporatism--the game corrupt governments play where they let corporations get their way. The line between state and corporations should stay just as pronounced as the line between church and state. After all, corporations are not human beings and should not have the same access to government that individuals do.
At least, that's my opinion.
So, while I think it's fine for an individual human to have an incorrect belief or even a blatantly offensive belief, I don't think it's right to allow corporations to do the same. They are not people and have infinitely larger resources than just about any single human.
So, like [http://thepete.com/prussian-blue-cute-young-blond-girls-sing-about-racist-hate-in-a-bad-way/#comment-21417|those little blond girls who sing (poorly) about how superior the white race is], I think Irving should be allowed to be blatantly, patently wrong if he chooses to be.
I have no problem with people disagree with me until it effects the rights of myself or others.
Well, I may not think what your expressing is a great idea and I might be critical of your point, but ultimately, each human on this planet is entitled to their opinion. Even as an Atheist, I believe that.
No comments:
Post a Comment