Incitement to Commit Genocide
@rosettaresearch (1285)
United States
October 20, 2008 5:59pm CST
This is considered a war crime. The people who commit it are being charged because the things they said caused others to commit genocide. I wrote a paper on it that is published at Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1055844/incitement_to_commit_genocide_crime.html?cat=17
What do you think of this charge? Should speech be criminalized? Can something be said so bad that someone should go to jail for it. Or is the answer to evil speech more speech denouncing it? Discuss.
1 response
@writersedge (22563)
• United States
23 Oct 08
On the one hand, I agree with freedom of speech. On the other hand, if a person is trying to incite others to kill all of another group of people and succeeds, that group of people won't exist any more. Hitler spoke against groups of people and had others kill them. Evil speech can be denounced by positive speech, but what if people don't listen to the positive speech, only the evil speech and act on it? Like during the late 50s and early 60s where people were hung for being different and the people that spoke out against hatred were hung right beside them.
If people state an opinion in such a way to arrose others to action to the point where they actually kill someone, then it's inciting others to commit a crime. If someone merely states they don't like a group of people or are uncomfortable around other people, that is one thing. But to incite others to the point of killing or torturing, then I would say something has to be done to stop them.
I saw you had zero responses, so I thought I'd help you out since you answered my craft question. Not sure if this answered your question or not. Take care
@rosettaresearch (1285)
• United States
23 Oct 08
this is exactly what I was looking for. A thoughtful answer to a difficult question. Yes, it is difficult in in the international context. In Europe, there are laws against such things as denying the holocaust. In the US, we have freedom of speech that allows people to say what they like, as long as it is not a call to immeidate violence against a specific target. So, whose views should prevail, the European view or the US view?
@writersedge (22563)
• United States
23 Oct 08
Interestingly enough, neither view stops the hate. One tries for prevention more than the other, it would seem. But neither works very well unless you have someone at the right place at the right time (like police or guards) to stop the situation. Prevention can turn into no freedom of speech. But without prevention, you could have more people torturing and killing. So they each have their drawbacks.
