Posted on 05/25/2021 5:36:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ever post a Bible verse on social media? Under the law in Finland, this could land you in jail. A Finnish provision holds that if a person is found to have expressed an “opinion” or “another message” deemed to have “threatened, defamed, or insulted” they could face imprisonment for up to two years—potentially serious jail time for nothing more than a perceived insult.
Lest this sound unfathomably dystopian, this law has been employed by Finland’s Prosecutor General to bring three criminal charges against long-time Finnish Member of Parliament, and former Minister of the Interior, Dr. Päivi Räsänen. Her alleged crime: she expressed her deeply held beliefs about marriage and sexuality in a 2019 Bible tweet and subsequent radio show, in addition to writing a church pamphlet on the topic seventeen years ago. Now, this committed public servant, medical doctor, and grandmother of six faces onerous legal proceedings, and the looming threat of imprisonment.
This is a watershed moment for fundamental human rights. How can Finland, a country that often tops the charts in rule of law rankings, so blatantly disregard the basic human right to freedom of speech? Let this be a warning for Americans as well. Europe may be leading the charge on the proliferation of silencing “hate speech” laws, but the United States is far from immune to this insidious trend. The idea that the government has the prerogative to silence speech with criminal sanctions is gaining traction across the world, with severe ramifications for all fundamental freedoms.
Some might perceive Dr. Räsänen’s case as yet another example of “cancel culture” gone awry, but we can’t discount the severity of what’s at stake—a possible prison sentence simply over voiced views.
As with any speech, the public expression of opinion always has the potential to offend. And Dr. Räsänen’s words may have indeed offended some, but is this criminal? As tensions flare, we need to be reminded that it’s not about whether you agree or disagree with her statements. Put simply, it’s about whether the government should be able to silence what it considers the “wrong” kind of speech.
This is a watershed moment for fundamental human rights. How can Finland, a country that often tops the charts in rule of law rankings, so blatantly disregard the basic human right to freedom of speech? Let this be a warning for Americans as well. Europe may be leading the charge on the proliferation of silencing “hate speech” laws, but the United States is far from immune to this insidious trend. The idea that the government has the prerogative to silence speech with criminal sanctions is gaining traction across the world, with severe ramifications for all fundamental freedoms.
Some might perceive Dr. Räsänen’s case as yet another example of “cancel culture” gone awry, but we can’t discount the severity of what’s at stake—a possible prison sentence simply over voiced views.
As with any speech, the public expression of opinion always has the potential to offend. And Dr. Räsänen’s words may have indeed offended some, but is this criminal? As tensions flare, we need to be reminded that it’s not about whether you agree or disagree with her statements. Put simply, it’s about whether the government should be able to silence what it considers the “wrong” kind of speech.
The facts of Dr. Räsänen’s case in no way support a finding of criminal wrongdoing, or any wrongdoing whatsoever. All should hope that justice will prevail for her, revealing the absurdity of not only her charges, but also the law under which she has been charged. Given the burdensome nature of this legal ordeal, it is clear that she is being made an example of—an ominous warning for all.
Although a world away in Finland for now, the ripples of this case surely will be felt across the Atlantic. The lawsuit touches on far more than the freedom to tweet Bible verses. In jeopardy is our very right to express our opinions and beliefs in the public square without fear of retribution—a fundamental human right most urgently in need of defense at this time.
It is happening here, too, using the Patriot Act to nullify Free Speech.
These laws, of course, aren’t designed to eliminate all offensive speech. If they were, then everyone would be a criminal, since virtually any speech could offend someone somewhere.
Really, the laws are meant to criminalize only speech deemed offensive by those in power. They are a selective poison to an unalienable human right.
WWII was supposed to end all of this and not put it on steroids today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.