Brynn Barineau

Tag: free speech

  • Should hate speech be a crime?

    Should hate speech be a crime?

    Just when you start to think your country is the best at something, reality goes and levels the playing field. I thought the US boasted the craziest, angriest bigots but then a group of pissed off Brazilians took to twitter Sunday night and proved me wrong. It seems really hateful people can live anywhere. How unfortunate.

    The hate-filled twitter feed was brought to my attention by a fellow blogger (Thanks Rachel!). Obviously not everyone in Brazil is happy about Dilma’s election. A few people decided the best way to express their frustration was to send a flurry of tweets blaming voters in the Northeast and calling for them to be gassed Nazi Germany style. (Really, the casual references to Nazis and Hitler being tossed out these days show a disturbing lack of perspective. But I digress…)

    The group Diga Não A Xenofobia (Say No to Xenophobia) collected a few of the tweets and posted a summary of the subsequent legal action being filed against one of the authors. The tweets are at the bottom of the article and even if you don’t speak a word of Portuguese the hate comes through loud and clear.

    That these people are ignorant bigots and their messages racist, hateful and repulsive is beyond dispute. But should they be prosecuted for expressing that hate? No, I don’t think so.

    I know my opinion is grounded in a very American understanding of free speech. Hate speech is illegal in many countries, not just Brazil. Here the crime of racism results in 2-5 years in prison and a fine. While I think the sentiment behind such laws is good, I don’t think they are effective and I firmly believe they encroach on a person’s right to voice her opinion.

    I assume that laws against hate speech were enacted to combat racism, xenophobia, etc. Perhaps, supporters even believe they made things safer and cut down on hate crimes. Based on what I’ve experienced, the laws merely force racism underground. It is not extinguished. People will continue to voice their opinions in the privacy of their homes, between friends and in front of their children, but now there is no public debate about the issue. I think it’s better to know who the bigots are and what they’re thinking. You can confront them and debate the issue.

    On a more fundamental level, I believe that if a person wants to post 140 characters of trash that is her right. Unfortunately, she has a right to be a bigot.

    One exception to free speech is inciting violence. Calling on people to kill or hurt others should not be protected. The twitter author is being charged with inciting the public to commit a crime and it carries a penalty of 3-6 months in prison or a fine. (I’m baffled why inciting a crime results in less jail time than being a racist. Anyway…)

    So what crime did this tweeter ask people to commit? She asked for people to do SP (Sao Paulo) a favor and kill someone from the Northeast. Disgusting, yes but a clarion call to violence, I think not.

    Now, if she had gone on to list the names and addresses of several people then I’d agree she was trying to incite actual violence. But a tweet? Someone who takes the time to send a tweet to express her hate is not violent. Just ignorant and lazy. These people are too busy trying to figure out how many slurs they can fit within 140 characters to be a threat to anything other than their own reputations.

    What do you think? Should hate speech be a crime? Should the people who sent the tweets be prosecuted?

  • Free Speech in Brazil

    If there is one group of people I would not want to piss off, it’s comedians.  They may make other people laugh but comedians themselves can be a savage and unforgiving group.  Think Tina Faye and Sarah Palin or Jon Stewart and anyone at Fox News.  A good comedian can leave someone’s ego in tatters and send him running for mommy.

    Maybe it’s that ability Brazilian politicians feared when back in July at the official start of the campaign season,  the electoral commission decided to start enforcing a law that prohibited ridiculing a candidate.  Specifically, radio and tv personalities cannot create audio or video content that degrades or ridicules a candidate, party or coalition.  The fine for a single infraction is R$200,000.

    As an American, I was shocked when I read this.  Because of course, as an American I know what true democracy is and am its de facto spokesperson when abroad.  I know the right to mock politicians is sacred.  It’s a cornerstone supporting the entire institution democracy.  Freedom to religion, property, guns, and to mercilessly ridicule politicians.

    In the midst of my righteous indignation on behalf of free speech, my husband pointed out, correctly, that free speech is a myth.  All countries regulate speech in some way.  The type of speech that gets regulated is determined by culture.  In the US, we allow the most grotesque distortions of facts to be presented as truth.  And in addition to Fox News, we also allow political satire.  We do, however, regulate speech related to sex.  You can call the President a nazi but you can’t say the word vagina.

    If there are precedents of regulating offensive speech, then it’s understandable the Brazilian legislature wants to protect the image of the candidates from harmful humor.  Right?  Turns out most Brazilians are not political candidates themselves, strongly value free speech, and really enjoy satire.  Hundreds joined comedians in a protest through Copacabana.  Legal experts throughout the country condemned the law.  One op-ed in O Globo said the law ignores the fact that truth is often presented through satire.  Also, it’s unconstitutional.

    A few people who share that opinion, 6 to be exact, are on the Supreme Court and last week voted to suspend the law.  Even the justices who dissented agreed the law was never meant to be applied to comedians, but felt its complete suspension was unnecessary.  It’s a victory for free speech and Brazilian comedians have something to smile about.