Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

NOG, I know you're asking Ragusa, but I would like to offer a practical clarification to you regarding Holocaust Denial (as a person who believes in practical approach of things).

The punishing of Holocast Denial is certainly explained/established/supported by various laws and constitutional considerations etc. (and I'm sure Ragusa will present you all), but it has a simple reason in reality:

Sensitivity (and other synonyms could be added too). This is the practical reason that it was declared a crime in several countries: because in these countries, simply the Holocaust denial can hurt a lot people, especially those who lost their brothers, sisters, parents, relatives, etc. during the Holocaust. Once I asked someone why it's not a crime in the USA, and he answered: "because they didn't experience what Europe experienced. It didn't happen there".

So e.g. this is true formally:

But the real reason the law about Holocaust Denial exists is what I told.



---------- Added 6 hours, 29 minutes and 11 seconds later... ----------

A different point (example):

Since "antisemitism", "racism" and "gypsy discrimination" were brought up regarding Hungary, let me share something here.

In Hungary, police reports (at least in news) do not mention the skin colour, assumed ethnic group or anything origin-related of the suspect. Not at all. If there is a gypsy suspect, they just say: "the suspect broke into the house and killed the old lady". Unlike in the USA. E.g. about the horrible shooting today, this is written:

It is part of normal information flow in the USA, and IMO that's fine. In Hungary, as you can see, even without a "dictatoric media law", they do not mention skin colour. They are this "careful" or whatever.

 

Baronius, thanks for the insight (and yes, I knew that already), but I was asking about the 'how' of it, not the 'why'. I know the justification behind it, I'm just wondering how they legally ban Nazi sentiments, but not other political sentiments.

 

So, if I read that right, the law bans these groups by name and symbol? So, for example, a group marching under the swastica, calling themselves neo-Nazis, would be banned, but a group marching under an inverted Y, calling themselves the National Return Party, and advocating essentially the same principles as the Nazis advocated, including a 'seperate but equal' society for the Jews in the east, would be legal?

Or am I missing something?

 

A related note:

In Hungary, the law forbids the use of so-called totalitarian symbols. Swastika and the red star are both included.

Unfortunately, (at least in Hungary) it seems that authorities usually did not take Communist symbols as seriously as Nazi ones (despite of the fact that both are forbidden as totalitarian symbols). For example, there was a pub with the red star symbol in its entrance (yes, the socialists -- who controlled the police too between 2002 and 2010 -- didn't do against such Communist symbols for some reason, despite of the fact the law prohibited the Red Star too... What would Orbán get internationally if the police nowadays ignored -- even accidently -- the use of swastika?! My opinion: the law must be enforced completely, let it be a swastika or red cross or anything else). (Moreover, it's not possible to argue that the red star was used by the pub for historical reasons to make old (for some people nostalgic) atmosphere; you can't open a pub with a swastika symbol either.) In these days, however, I suppose they will act seriously in case of both symbols. (About sensitivity, many people suffered in the history due to Communist regimes, and their suffering can often be compared to what e.g. Jews had to suffer.)

 

In Hungary, I suppose their program itself ("[..]including a 'seperate but equal' society for the Jews in the east") would meet the conditions of hate speech, or the condition of "creating hatred against a community" (not sure about its exact legal term in English).

 

We do need an English term for that, we have such a law here as well and if I translated it it would be something like "inciting ethnicity" or somesuch. Do the Brits have any such law and if so what do they call it?

 

I wish we had a law like that here. We should do the same, IMO.

Before coming to this conclusion I glanced over some of the forums on this website - It was an angry and painful experience, but it confirmed my feeling that we should have such laws here and have such things banned. Sometimes one has to standup for what is right, rather than "just turn the other way" in the face of something so vile.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)

Edit: However, we can't have any of this:

 

So you say you don't have "inciting against ethnicity" or "inciting against a nationality". But you have against racism, obviously. So publicly inciting against blacks or jews would be qualified as racism, right?

 

I don't think racism is illegal. There is a 'crime modifier' (or whatever) called hate crime, where the prosecuter tries to prove that the crime in question was committed because of racial, sexual, ethnic, religious, or similar hate (there's a list of protected groups), but there you have to be charged with another crime to come into play. AFAIK, I could walk into any public place in America and shout, "Croatians are the scum of the Earth, and God has rightly cursed them with baldness to show their shame! We need to deport all these sub-human hairless apes back to Croatia before they pollute our pure culture!"* and I'd get nothing more than lots of funny looks. Swastica-wearing, black-denouncing, skin-headed neo-Nazis can hold organized rallies as long as they aren't enciting people to criminal acts.

There is that crime. Inciting people to a criminal act is itself a criminal act, so encouraging people to lynch blacks would be considered a crime.

*This is just an example. I have no idea how many Croatians are bald.

 

Racism is legal here [within certain bounds]; racist speech is legal and protected as well.

 

People can have rallies (private), people can believe whatever they wan't as I understand these laws we have they are only against public speaking and public spreading of hate.

 

Could you tell an example to the protection?

 

The KKK is an overtly racist group and they are allowed to hold rallies.

 

I have already given you the example of Stormfront. You can check the site if you need confimation.

http://izismile.com/2010/03/18/taboo_snapshots_neonacizm_in_the_usa_41_pics.html

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/86037091





It's ironic that this is made by Al -Jazeera, but it appears accurate.

 

Tough.

Thanks for the clarification guys.


---------- Added 8 hours, 38 minutes and 59 seconds later... ----------

Since the "manipulated photo" thread is meant to be about the photo of Orbán manipulated by the weekly newspaper The Economist, I put here my text what I wrote on that thread:

So what can you say to this, you clever lawyers who attacked the HU media law in this topic? You say something like: "even if the HU media law is approved by the majority of Hungarians, it is unconstitutional because it doesn't respect the rights of the minority". What about Patriot Act? Probably it has its (maybe not so minor) minority as well, are their rights violated as well? Better to get blown up in the New York subway than accepting that you are not as "free" as before in some things? While it's not against terrorism, the HU media law protects our children, prohibits hate speech and spreading racism/antisemitsm, reduces the chances to mislead/brainwash the audience with content that serves the interests of certain groups, and yes, the minority who doesn't like might feel oppressed. And then what? Patriot Act "oppresses" too, but at least decreases the probability of successful terrorist attacks. If it's terrible that a law is accepted because of the fear of people, what is the alternative? Praying not to get blown up? Similarly, what's the alternative to the cr**py media in Hungary nowadays? To start some endless and fruitless debates with the channels to be more children- and human value-friendly, or to tell people not to use TVs or to instruct their children to watch other channels?! That wouldn't have an effect. In a society, that's like saying in the USA that everyone should carry a gun and a bulletproof vest against suicidal bombings and gun assassinations... I know my examples are cruel, but in my country, there is a value crisis where the future of the society is at stake, so I take the problem seriously, and I'm not alone with it.

So if Patriot Act is an example of a freedom restricting law that actually has an "accurate explanation" (fear from terrorist acts), why the HU media law cannot be such?

 

Heh, I would say that there are a large proportion of people here who do feel that the USA PATRIOT Act was wrong and unconstitutional, due to possible breach of the Fourth Amendment. It's an argument that's been held many times. Not the best battle ground to pick.

The obvious response there is either "Yes, the Patroit Act is bad. Well done. So is the Hungary media law"; or "Where is the connection between the 'correctness' of the Patriot Act and the 'correctness' of the Hungary media law? They two factors do not influence each other".

 

Tell me Rotku, do those people who say Patriot Act is so bad know anything about the difficulty of national security? Some of them probably, because they worked in that field, but the many others? Or do they unconditionally believe the opinion of the few who say "this could have been done in a better form"? (Then they trust them personally, i.e. their expertise; something many of you guys didn't intend to do in the initial parts of my media law topics.) How would you know those are indeed right who say it is bad? How can it be known that a law which respects freedom rights more would grant sufficient security?

Second question: what would you choose (or e.g. if you were American), to be blown to pieces in the New York subway, or the Patriot Act?

If you avoid answering the above with the argument they're irrelevant to the media law (this applies to others too such as dmc who are known to regularly check these threads), then it will show you can't answer and I "caught" you. Simply because much longer off-topic matters were discussed in this topic already.