Illegal to publish racist material in UK?

The Race Relations Act 1976 makes it illegal to treat someone less favourably because of the colour of their skin, their race, their nationality or their ethnic or national origin.

More here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/support/racism.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/0,2759,180308,00.html




from: [UK] Commission For Racial Equality


You can read some booklets (as pdf-files) by The Crown Prosecution Office on Racist and Religious Crime
HERE!

If there is one thing I am against it is racism but to say that the UK law bans the presentation in a publication of a racist viewpoint, or that of presenting one group "less favorably", sounds to me, as an American, a legal quagmire, like a pit with no bottom. Maybe some groups deserve a less favorable presentation, and who is to say what that is anyway? If unrestrained viewpoints are banned, then they will only be held in secret and we all know how well keeping things secret works.

Well, I think that one of the many different views of public and criminal law, which differ the US from (most) Europe.

it merely bans derogatory and insulting racial comments and calling for exclusion of anybody on religious or racial grounds - seems a good law to me.

It doesn't affect freedom of speech really as it is the insulting and derogatory nature that is illegal. Much like the rules on A2K!

source: Internet Watch Foundation

exactly! thanks Walter

I can't see a problem with that. Stirring up racial hatred should be illegal surely?

Under American law, it is legal to express any viewpoint, no matter how repugnant to most people. You can't incite people to immediate violence, but you can express any opinion, no matter what it is. Often civil liberties groups will make it a special point to defend persons with particularly repugnant viewpoints, based on the idea that if freedom of speech is ever compromised in the future, it will probably start with people who's opinions are offensive to almost everyone, and then proceed to the rest of us.

I have talked to cyber friends over in Europe, and I think this is an example between the two places.

In Europe, if a fellow gives a speech on street corner, and says the Jews run everything, the Jews own all the business, the Jews are out to take over the whole world and make everyone else their underlings, and someone listening to that speech goes out and beats up a Jew, I believe the speechmaker is in legal trouble.

If, in America, the same fellow gives the same speech, and a member of the audience goes out and beats up a Jew, then the speechmaker is not in trouble. However, if at any point the speechmaker specifically tells people to "get a Jew"-as actually happened in a famous case in New York City-and a member of the audience beats up or kills a Jew, then the speechmaker is in trouble. In the New York City case, the Jewish person was indded stabbed and killed by a 16 year old who listened to the speech. The speechmaker, as well as the 16 year old, went to jail for a number of years.

PS: Believe it or not, at first the 16 year old was not indicted by a
Grand Jury, (a necessary step before a trial is held), and the 16 year old went free. Only the victim's brother-who came all the way over to New York from Australia-made enough noise for several months to get the case reopened and the 16 year old indicted, tried and convicted on a different charge, as well as the speechmaker.

Yes, Viv, I said he would be in trouble in Europe just for saying those things-and nothing more.

However, in America the speechmaker would not be in trobule simply for saying those things. Only if the speechmaker advocates administering violence-such as saying "Get a Jew" in the New York case-would he be in trouble.

Even though the speechmaker says nasty things and makes unproved specific accusations against a group, it is considered the speechmaker's opinion and it is constitutionally protected in the USA. The speechmaker in America must actually advocate violence before he can be said to be breaking the law.

That is a fundamental difference between Europe and America on this issue.

Incidentally, the New York case is also known as the Crown Heights case , in case anyone wishes to check it out. Crown Heights is in Brooklyn. The case was instrumental in getting Rudy Giuliani elected mayor.

keltic - do you think they should be allowed to spout untrue, unsubstantiated and objectionable opinions?

If they were talking about one specific person and the facts were untrue then they could be sued for slander - surely these laws are the equivalent protection?

Strictly speaking, "slander" is the utterance of false statements or misrepresentations injurious to a person's reputation; a false, defamatory a/o malicious statement or report about a person.

Slander refers specifically to action done against individuals, not groups. That is how US laws approach it.

yes, that's why i said they were an equivalent protection.

Vivien:

I've been thinking about this for a long while, ever since I had the online conversation with a cyber-friend in Cork, Ireland where I became aware of the difference between Europe and America on this issue.

Both versions have their strengths and weaknesses.

On the one hand, the European law prevents the obvious possiblility, which is that a person who is actively trying to provoke ethnic violence can simply make sure that he does not actually say, "Get someone from this group", but can get his audience so riled up against the group in question that they are likely to commit violence as soon as they leave the meeting. It's easy enough. All the speechmaker has to do is say that this group is getting an unfair advantage over everyone else, is responsible for the bad shape of of his audience's lives, and make up a "history" where he illustrates this has been true. In a certain sense, the European law is more realistic and sophisticated than American law.

On the other hand, sometimes various groups do indeed act badly toward others. The English and Spanish did import millions of blacks from Africa to work the fields, where they had the status of livestock. Colonists and later Americans did slaughter the Indians-come to think of it, so did the Canadians. And these are just a few examples.

The thing is, most ideas, even true ones, begin life as controversial ideas. If we label ideas and "histories" as hate speech, that could have an inhibiting effect on people feeling free to express their opinions. Forcing someone to prove their opinion in order to keep out of jail, or pay a hefty amount to the group he offended, would possibly ruin free thought. Yes, some objectionable ideas are out there. But even many true ideas first started as objectionable ideas, whose "proof", later accepted, was considered preposterous at the time.

Both the European and American approaches have much to recommend, I think. But I think I am leaning, ever-so-slightly, toward the American version.

For one thing, it has been said that once you give up a certain freedom, it is much harder to get it back.

For the second, I have seen, in my own lifetime, many things that would be considered very objectionable become accepted. It used to be considered a terrible offense to your neighbors to sell your house to a black family, and to let them move into the neighborhood. Racial intermarriage was so objectionable it was illegal in some Southern states, where it was called "miscegenation". And now we have increasing acceptance of homosexuality, which was the very essence of objectionablility not too long ago.

Too many "objectionable" things have come to be accepted in my lifetime for me to accept "objectionabity" as a, well, objective criterion.

While the European law is more realistic in certain specific instances, I think the American law might do a better job in preserving freedom. So I'll go with the American version of the law.

Also,
prejudice cannot be legislated. These anti-speech laws only serve to drive the bigots and racists underground. They are, and will always be there, regardless of restrictive laws.

Is there any data showing that anti-racist speech laws have reduced racism, or curtailed hate-crimes?

keltic and infrablue - you make some good points and the how-to-define objectionable is a good point.

I go back to the point that you can say you disagree with something with valid reasons to back it up - but NOT on sweeping grounds of colour, race, religion, sexuality, where all of a group are classed as being the same.

I do believe that the laws here are best - it prevents the awful rantings we used to have from isolated bigots. Yes there will always be bigots - but if their power to influence and spread their hatred is limited, it can only be a good thing.

I can say freely that the influx of immigrants is a terrible strain on our helath service - but not that the black immigrants alone are. The first statement is perfectly true, the second is only a fraction of the truth - immigrants come from the eastern bloc, Portugal, Ireland, Africa, the West Indies etc etc etc - a real cultural mix of religions and colours and all add to the strain - not just moslems or those of a certain colour. Without the legislation bigots would target their particular 'hate'group and blame them - as Hitler did with the Jews in Germany.

Bigots target their favorite groups to hate and blame them as Hitler did with the Jews in Germany in the U.S. of A., Great Britain, and Europe with or without legislation. They do it here on Abuzz on a daily basis.

Bigots target for physical violence their favorite groups to hate in these countries and continents also, regardless of legislation. They are vigorously pursued and persecuted in these places nonetheless.

You sound a little lost. . .

Pardon, A2K.

Thanks