[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

There's a major difference between pissing off 1.5 billion people with inflammatory hate speech ... and taking those guilty of that, to court.

Again, its not clear that its hate speech. Hate speech is defined according statutes and case law. If its not a crime, then the people who engaged in it aren't guilty.

We should use hate speech codes for when we really need them.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

I'm not aware if the US is a signatory to any UN law that bans hate speech.

Courts in the US would probably never issue an injunction against newspapers for printing caricatures like the Danish cartoons unless there was an overriding governmental interest on the level of a national security interest (such as releasing classified information). The cartoons are artistic expressions and a court would caution itself from restricting speech that, albeit hateful, is necessary to the public discourse. If the speeches called upon Muslims to be executed or raped, then it would transgress that boundary and fall into the category of inciteful speech and could thus be regulated.

The legal system should be the last resort for our community, we should exhaust alternative remedies. If these cartoons are calling the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) a terrorist, then instead of banning that speech and antagonizing people and coming off as a bunch of fascists who hate freedom and criticism, we should just organize events that high light his true personality.

You don't fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water.

Is there any law saying you can't 'harass' people with it though? Say the cartoon people were eccentric billionaires who spared no expense posting the pictures at every turn, so that they couldn't be ignored.

Part of the reason I'm not against the cartoonist's right to draw those pictures is that they weren't at every turn, if people wanted to ignore them they could do so.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Jinnz, Legal

Admittedly both of you are in the field of law while I am not, but - my question still remains, despite what you have presented so far.

If these countries are signatories to any UN law that bans hate speech or enforces human rights, then why can't we go to the Hague or the ICC to enforce those laws? And this would be done as a last resort.

Otherwise, if your outreach efforts fail, if your efforts to induce self-introspection fail, then what's your alternative? You're not in any capacity to make war to defend the dignity of God and His Messenger, so why not utilize existing laws to show people you mean business? Otherwise they'll laugh at your outreach failures and continue making fun.

The situation is not as clear cut. The states would argue that their existing laws cover the situation and therefore a referral to the Hague is unnecessary.

After a certain stage in your legal studies you realise that courts look at the states interests rather than applying the law according to the strict statutory interpretation even if this means ignoring precedent. We call that a 'public policy' decision.

A referral to the Hague would raise hackles....

I prefer the prophetic method of boycotting or 'sending to coventry' somebody who had seriously offended him.

If certain states want to behave like children then give them a time-out. They'll come to their senses when their economies suffer, suddenly that holiday to see the pyramids takes a month to process the paperwork....

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Variable

Is there any law saying you can't 'harass' people with it though? Say the cartoon people were eccentric billionaires who spared no expense posting the pictures at every turn, so that they couldn't be ignored.

Part of the reason I'm not against the cartoonist's right to draw those pictures is that they weren't at every turn, if people wanted to ignore them they could do so.

There might be specific state laws that prohibit such speech, but I doubt they would muster the strength to withstand Constitutional criticism. The first amendment is blunt and I agree with the reasoning of it. I don't think the state should be called to intervene and stifle speech because it has a very strong propensity to abuse that grant of power. I hate the Danish cartoons, but giving the state the ability to regulate all speech is more offensive in the long run.

I'm not saying that the cartoons shouldn't be opposed, but the means by which it should be opposed is different.

Now, if there WAS a statute that existed, then I would definitely be all for prosecuting them. But as the law stands today, I don't think its possible.