As might have become apparent from many of my blog posts, I'm what has become in some circles known as a "free speech absolutist" (which is a very "centrist" / "classical liberal" position). This means that, among other things:
But then comes the dilemma of where the limits of legal speech are. Not all speech is protected under the fundamental right of free speech. Not everything that one may express in words, or any other form of communication, can be protected. Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it's automatically protected from legal consequences. The eternal judicial-philosophical dilemma is where exactly the limits are.
For example, direct and blatant solicitation or incitement to criminal activity is not, and should not be protected. For example, if I go to someone and say to him "I will pay you ten thousand dollars, cash, if you take this rock and smash that store window with it and steal the stuff on display", this is not something that's protected under even the most absolutist definition of free speech. It is something that's expressed in words, but I would still be legally responsible for this criminal act because of it, and that's how it should be. This is not something that falls under the protection of free speech.
Another archetypal example is defamation: If I deliberately and willfully spread complete lies about somebody in a manner that will cause severe social, economic or even legal troubles for that person, causing actual tangible harm to that person eg. in the form of social shunning or legal consequences, this is not speech that's protected under the right to free speech, and shouldn't be.
The line between what should and shouldn't be protected can sometimes be extraordinarily blurry.
However, when it comes to punishing a person for speech that may or may not be protected, and may have legal consequences if not under protection, every case should be considered individually and with extreme care. There should be very strict standards for legally judging people on what they have said, and these standards should be strict and require strong burden of proof from the prosecution.
Judging standards that are too strict, or too lax, can easily lead to abuse. If punishing people for their expression of opinion is too lax, this easily leads to abuse in the form of persecution (eg. political persecution). People will be arbitrarily punished for expressing opinions that should fall fully under the protection of free speech. Conversely, if the standards are too strict, it may allow people to get away with clear violations, such as incitement to violence and crime.
This is one of those really difficult philosophical questions for which there is no simple definitive answer.
- The right to free speech is universal: It applies to everybody equally, regardless of who they are. Everybody has the same right to free speech regardless of anything.
- Free speech is an inalienable right: This means that it cannot be revoked under any circumstance, no matter what. It doesn't matter what you do, you retain your right to free speech. You may commit the most heinous crimes against humanity that can ever be imagined, but that doesn't affect one iota your fundamental right to free speech.
- The right to free speech is unconditional: It does not depend on anything. It does not depend on who you are, it does not depend on what your status or condition is, it does not depend on what you do, or have done, it does not depend on what your opinions and stances are.
But then comes the dilemma of where the limits of legal speech are. Not all speech is protected under the fundamental right of free speech. Not everything that one may express in words, or any other form of communication, can be protected. Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it's automatically protected from legal consequences. The eternal judicial-philosophical dilemma is where exactly the limits are.
For example, direct and blatant solicitation or incitement to criminal activity is not, and should not be protected. For example, if I go to someone and say to him "I will pay you ten thousand dollars, cash, if you take this rock and smash that store window with it and steal the stuff on display", this is not something that's protected under even the most absolutist definition of free speech. It is something that's expressed in words, but I would still be legally responsible for this criminal act because of it, and that's how it should be. This is not something that falls under the protection of free speech.
Another archetypal example is defamation: If I deliberately and willfully spread complete lies about somebody in a manner that will cause severe social, economic or even legal troubles for that person, causing actual tangible harm to that person eg. in the form of social shunning or legal consequences, this is not speech that's protected under the right to free speech, and shouldn't be.
The line between what should and shouldn't be protected can sometimes be extraordinarily blurry.
However, when it comes to punishing a person for speech that may or may not be protected, and may have legal consequences if not under protection, every case should be considered individually and with extreme care. There should be very strict standards for legally judging people on what they have said, and these standards should be strict and require strong burden of proof from the prosecution.
Judging standards that are too strict, or too lax, can easily lead to abuse. If punishing people for their expression of opinion is too lax, this easily leads to abuse in the form of persecution (eg. political persecution). People will be arbitrarily punished for expressing opinions that should fall fully under the protection of free speech. Conversely, if the standards are too strict, it may allow people to get away with clear violations, such as incitement to violence and crime.
This is one of those really difficult philosophical questions for which there is no simple definitive answer.
Comments
Post a Comment