26 May 10 | Uncategorized
Is a ban on a tattoo parlour opening in California’s Hermosa Beach a form of censorship? Johnny Anderson, who runs “Yer Cheat’n Heart” in Gardena, thinks so. He’s gone to court in Los Angeles claiming that a local zoning law that prevents him from free expression via the medium of his customers’ bodies, and so is contrary to the First Amendment.
Legal discussion of whether tattoos are protected speech and whether the zoning law is illegal is likely to drag on. Hermosa Beach seems to have an effective indirect ban on tattoo-making — at least in a shop. But from across the water this doesn’t look like a serious infringement of free expression for the individual concerned. Tattoos for many people — makers and wearers alike – can be a powerful statement of belief. I’m always amazed when I see someone ready to announce “ACAB” across their knuckles (“All Coppers Are Bastards”), for example. It would be interesting too, to know, whether UK libel laws would treat tattooing as a form of publication — what would have happened if Simon Singh had tattooed his thoughts about chiropractors across his forehead, for example?
But in the US example, Anderson can easily tattoo from his shop in Gardena. And the publicity surrounding this case will probably guarantee him a steady flow of human canvases. He’s not being censored since his works still gets to be seen. Presumably the people he’s tattooed are free to remove their shirts and display his work in Hermosa Beach. He’s just limited in where he locates his studio. And that isn’t quite the same thing as censorship, as any artist who has been censored would be able to explain to him. Surely the important issue should be whether or not the individual gets to express him or herself, not the precise geographical location of where the creative act takes place.
25 May 10 | Uncategorized
In today’s Queen’s Speech, the monarch mentioned that “Legislation will be brought forward to restore freedoms and civil liberties through the abolition of identity cards and repeal of unnecessary laws.”
This legislation will largely consist of the Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill, which, among other things, promises as a main element of its remit “the reform of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.”
This would seem to be an advance on the text of the coalition agreement, which promised only a “review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.”
It remains to be seen whether this reform will be based on Lord Lester‘s private member’s bill. But the coalition has, in writing, committed to reform.
Now it’s important we hold them to it.
06 May 10 | Uncategorized
Should the 1986 Public Order Act be used to curb homophobic speech by religious street preachers? A Baptist, Dale McAlpine, has been charged with causing intentional “harassment, alarm or distress” by describing same sex relationships as sinful. McAlpine was arrested after preaching from the top of a stepladder in Workington, Cumbria.
If you subscribe to the view that merely causing offence shouldn’t be deemed a genuine harm, as many defenders of free speech do, then this application of the 1986 law is morally indefensible. McAlpine’s sermon was certainly offensive to some, but it didn’t harm them. Hate speech, in contrast, is speech designed to cause its hearers real psychological pain. In some cases it can be more damaging than physical violence. If the law were used to curb this, there would be a better justification, though that would involve sensitivity to the details of each case. But there is little evidence that McAlpine was intending psychological damage to passersby. If anything, his intentions, though misguided, were benevolent.
There is a further problem with this case. The principle on which the arrest was made could be applied to just about any expressed view that listeners find offensive. Consistent application would result in the arrest of the Pope if he pronounces on homosexuality during his visit to the United Kingdom, but also of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins if they speak out publicly against the Pope’s immoral behaviour in relation to paedophilic priests.
Moral, political or religious disagreement shouldn’t be re-defined as “harassment” — that’s the sort of shift of meaning that George Orwell warned us about long ago. Greater toleration of divergent viewpoints is the answer here, not censorship. False and offensive speech should be met with counter-speech, not a gag.
Nigel Warburton is the author of Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction, He will be blogging regularly for Index on the philosopical aspects of free speech contoversies
05 May 10 | Uncategorized
This is a guest post by Nigel Warburton
Zoo Magazine’s illustrious Agony Uncle Danny Dyer‘s advice this week to a broken hearted correspondent was to go out and break another woman’s heart. Either that or “the other option is to cut your ex’s face, and then no one will want her”. This is neither funny nor nice.
The Sun reports that Dyer claims he was misquoted. But whether or not that’s true, should such comments be legal? If this were a genuine incitement to violence, then clearly not. But it reads like a bad attempt at a sick joke. And do we really want to censor sick jokes?
The difficulty here is that literal readings are no good when we are in the realm of humour and irony. This is one of those classic problems of drawing the line.
The patron saint of free expression, John Stuart Mill, recognised that it’s not the words but the use that makes all the difference. “Corn Dealers Are Starvers of the Poor” was fine in a newspaper editorial, but waved on a placard in front of a corn dealer’s house would be an incitement to violence and so should not be tolerated.
But deciding in the Zoo case isn’t that simple. Imagine what we would feel if the correspondent took the advice literally. Would we say he just didn’t get the joke? Or would that advice then, retrospectively, have morphed into an incitement to an evil action?
Should all speech delivered in an ironic tone be tolerated even when it literally incites violence? The trouble with written words, as Socrates noticed, was that when the author is not present, they can’t tell you exactly what he or she meant. So no easy answer here (and I mean that literally).
Update: Zoo has issued an apology, blaming an “extremely regrettable production error”.
