Indecent Psychological Exposure?
Every month or so, conservatives find a new what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-England story to shake their heads at.
And now this: Conservative talk-show host Michael Savage has been officially banned from England. According to Jaqui Smith, the director of the British Home Office, his presence in merry olde England would "cause inter-community tension or even violence."
Really?
Savage is a provocative guy. He gets angry -- a lot. And naturally, he has more than his share of detractors. But he isn't in the habit of commanding his listeners to commit acts of violence. Love him or hate him, grouping Savage with neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists is absurd.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this move has more to do with punishing someone for holding unpopular (i.e. unacceptable) views than it does with maintaining public tranquility.
Still, England's seeming censorship of Savage is only the latest sad chapter in the larger story of England's weak stance on the freedom of speech. Due to libel laws that are weighted against defendants, England is being used as an international center for the censorship of controversial material:
In other words, if you write something controversial about someone in America, and someone can read it in England, they can come after you. In response to the growth of British "libel tourism," Congress is considering a bill that would prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgements that violate the 1st amendment. A good move -- but it won't help blacklisted Savage.
Still, England's seeming censorship of Savage is only the latest sad chapter in the larger story of England's weak stance on the freedom of speech. Due to libel laws that are weighted against defendants, England is being used as an international center for the censorship of controversial material:
While in the United States the plaintiff must prove that the claims against him are false, in English law the defendants' claims are presumed false until proven otherwise: he has to demonstrate his innocence. If his defence fails, he must pay both costs and damages. The plaintiff's lawyers make little attempt to limit their costs: the partners at one well-known firm charge £750 an hour. The bill can rise to millions.
Perhaps you don't live in England or Wales, so you think this has nothing to do with you. You're wrong. English libel law now applies to everyone on Earth. Make any accusation, anywhere in the world, and if the subject can demonstrate that a single person in England or Wales has read it, you could be sued here for every penny, cent, rouble, rupee or renminbi you possess. The internet and the global nature of publishing ensure that these medieval laws have become the most powerful extra-territorial legislation ever drafted.
In other words, if you write something controversial about someone in America, and someone can read it in England, they can come after you. In response to the growth of British "libel tourism," Congress is considering a bill that would prevent the enforcement of foreign libel judgements that violate the 1st amendment. A good move -- but it won't help blacklisted Savage.
If the Obama administration has any guts, it should step up to defend one of our country's most prominent voices. What ever happened to "I may disagree with what you have to say -- but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?
No comments:
Post a Comment