Nowadays, words are often seen as a source of instability. The violent reactions last year to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper saw a confused Western response, with governments tripping over their tongues trying to explain what the media should and should not be allowed to do in the name of political satire. Then Iran trumped the West by sponsoring a conference of Holocaust deniers, a form of speech punished as criminal almost everywhere in Europe.
As Turks well know, it is dangerous to take a position on the Armenian genocide of 1915. The most recent Nobel laureate in literature, Orhan Pamuk, was prosecuted in Istanbul for denying Turkey's official history by saying that the Armenian genocide actually occurred. Other Turks have faced prosecution in Western Europe for saying that it did not.
So words are now clearly a battlefield in the cultural conflict between Islam and the West. The West has learned that, simply as a matter of self-censorship, not legal fiat, newspapers and other media outlets will not disseminate critical pictures of Mohammed, and the pope will no longer make critical comments about Islam. But these gestures of cooperation with Muslim sensibilities have not been met by reciprocal gestures.
Instead, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli Foreign Ministry now seeks prosecution of Ahmadinejad for incitement to commit genocide -- a violation of international law.
But the Israeli press is also bellicose. Israeli newspapers regularly carry stories about why Israel may need to attack Iran to prevent it from acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons. US President George W. Bush has made similarly ominous, if more vague, statements about Iran. In Germany, preparing and calling for preemptive military strikes from within the government are subject to criminal sanctions.
The world's different legal systems have never been in much agreement about the boundaries of free speech. Even between good neighbors like Canada and the US, there is little agreement about punishing hate speech. Canadians punish racial insults, but Americans do not, at least if the issue is simply one of protecting the dignity of racial minorities.
But threatening violence is more serious. Many countries are united in supporting the principle that if, say, Ahmadinejad does meet the criteria for incitement of genocide, he should be punished in the International Criminal Court. Indeed, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda punished radio station operators who made aggressive public broadcasts urging Hutus to pick up their machetes and murder Tutsis.
A decade ago there would have been a good argument in international law that the Hutu-Tutsi example supports prosecution only after the damage has been done. All the international precedents -- from Nuremberg to the present -- concern international intervention after mass atrocities. Domestic police may be able to intervene to prevent crime before it occurs, but in the international arena there is no police force that can do that.
It follows that the crime of incitement should apply only to cases like Rwanda, where the radio broadcasts actually contributed to the occurrence of genocide. In cases where bellicose leaders make public threats to "bury" another country or to wipe it off the map, the courts should wait, it was said, until some harm occurs.
But the international community has become ever more intrusive in using legal remedies against persons who engage in provocative and dangerous speech.
In September 2005, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1624 -- paradoxically, with US approval -- calling upon all member states to enact criminal sanctions against those who incite terrorism.
The model of incitement they had in mind is the same one that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly invoked: Muslim leaders standing up in their mosques and urging their congregations to go out and kill infidels.
Americans have traditionally said that, absent a risk of immediate unlawful violence, this form of speech should be protected under the First Amendment. US courts reasoned that it is better to allow the release of hateful sentiments than to call attention to them by showcasing them in court. But when it comes to terrorism in today's world, most countries are not as tolerant as they used to be.
So the traditional liberal position in support of giving wide scope to freedom of speech, even for extremists, is losing ground everywhere. When it comes to fighting terrorism and the prospect of genocide, the world is now becoming afraid of dangerous words.
George Fletcher is Cardozo professor of jurisprudence at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US