In Denmark we have a radio program called Radio24syv (radio 24-7), which have had some incidents making it look not too pro-Jewish.. Last year one of the hosts talked about the “damn Jew-lobby” and last week there was another incident, where the guest and a caller had a conversation lasting several minutes, talking about Nazism being a “beautiful” thing and that the existence of the “Mosaic society” should be discussed publicly, among other things, without the host reacting to it at all.
Of course does this not sit well with me, it’s not only being critical but rather hateful against people like me, not because of what we do, but because of what we are, and only because of that. Stating that “Nazism is a beautiful thing” is crossing my borders, I have to admit.
But some people, commenting this, stated that it’s freedom of speech, that people have the right to speak their minds, but do they really?
I’m personally for freedom of speech, at least until the point where we are going from being critical and stating that, till the point where we are indulging in a discussion that speaks or encourage the killing or damaging of others. Also recently in Denmark we had an artist (artist for some at least), named Kidd, who wrote on his Twitter that he hoped something would kill the head of DF (Danish Popular Party), which did attract criticism, but he (and others) defended himself by saying that he didn’t want to do it, that is, kill her, but rather that he hoped someone would. Now, is that encouraging violence or is it simply stating his opinion, and should he be free in doing so?
We also have other cases, where people are being taken to court for hateful speech, for example the artist and blogger Firoozeh Bazrafan, as well as some neo-Nazis (who were deemed innocent) – not to compare Firoozeh and the neo-Nazis.
The question is, where do we draw the line? Should we – in the name of freedom of speech – accept every statement? Should, as another example, accept that an editor of an American newspaper write in his editorial that one option for Israel, should be to kill the president of the USA, or should that be considered a threat, encouragement to violence or the like?
And should we accept excuses such as religion? Would a rabbi, who stated that homosexuality is basically wrong, be freed while a non-religious person, stating the same, whether in a different phrasing, be punished?
Where do we draw the line?