You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The Suppression Paradox - why banning hatred/racist speech doesn't work and may make things worse

in #life8 years ago (edited)

I agree with what you are saying, but (going into devil's advocate mode 8-) there are grey areas, like insults and threats, both punishable in many countries. It's not nice to hear "you're a Paki bastard", but is "I'm going to kill you and your family, sassenach bawbag" also something that should be accepted because of free speech? What if a man in a group of ruffians yells out "Look, a kike, let's rough him up", and the group does so, but the instigator doesn't participate, should he not be prosecuted for what he said?
People should be judged on what they have done and have free speech, but sometimes, as in the examples above, speech is eerily close to action.
The Dutch constitution forbids all forms of a-priori censorship, meaning you don't have to ask anyone's permission before you say something, but you can still be prosecuted a posteriori for insults, threats, and inciting to violence.
Where do you draw the line between free speech and illegal action? Is it that clear-cut?
(Out of devil's advocate mode again 8-)

Sort:  

Great points. I think it is a difficult issue. If someone's speech instigates a violent act then that is indeed a grey area. Ultimately that can only be determined by a court - as to what the intent of the speech was.