A look at the cost of free speech

[ficwize]

Given some of the meta flying around the old El Jay at the moment, I've become intrigued by the knowledge that not all democratic/republican governments (and, no, I am not talking about the American political parties here) allow free speech.

I will be upfront in my own bias and admit that that realization rocked me on my feet. While I grew up hearing that the First Amendment was a wonderful thing, as an adult (and as a lawyer), I got to look at it and see for myself.

And I came down on the side of free speech. But that's neither here nor there, really. I want to know what you guys think, if you'll tell me.

On the one hand, you hear stories about people being prosecuted for things like drawings of people engaged in illegal sex practices (which, to me is utterly ridiculous) and on the other, you hear about Neo Nazis being allowed to adopt a highway.

Given that most of the wank on the internet (ETA: "about which I am speaking now") centers around slash writing (and to some extent RPS, I guess?), I'm curious to know what people think. It seems to me that the same people got up in arms about Strikethrough as are now up in arms about people saying that they have the "right" to write whatever they want.

The internet, of course, isn't the United States government and isn't governed by those laws. So, when is the cost of free speech too high? Or is it never too high and should be endured even at the cost of listening to ridiculous, stupid, and/or hateful things being said?

Comments

[milleniumrex.livejournal.com]

I strongly fall down on the "never too high" category. The only time I find it acceptable to restrict free speech is when the speech is a direct attempt to incite murder. And while I find a lot of the things said out there to be absolutely repulsive, I sort of have to tolerate them. My main concern is that if we start restricting free speech, the power to restrict it is in the hands of whoever has the power at the moment - which can lead to some pretty uncomfortable situations.

But then, I'm a cranky libertarian absolutist. :)

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

In the interest of intelligent conversation, would you be willing to expand on "a direct attempt to incite murder" and talk about how that is different than hate-speech? I'd be really curious to know what you think.

And I'm rather fond of cranky libertarian absolutists. :)

[milleniumrex.livejournal.com]

Well, the way I see it is, someone yelling "We need to take back our country from those damn Jews" or something like that is obviously inciting hatred, but they really can't be held responsible for how someone takes that. They didn't directly tell anyone to commit violence.

On the other hand, someone who added "and we can start by shooting _______ " would be clearly advocating the commission of a specific violent act. It's the equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There's a direct link between the incitement and the damage that isn't there if the hate speech is less specific.

Hate groups have gotten really good at this over the years, walking this fine line just short of unlawful incitement.

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

I would agree with your distinction. Does it change if the group speaking has a history of actual violence? Like the KKK for example?

[milleniumrex.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily, but they seem to get a lot less leeway from law enforcement, because everyone knows what they're up to. Someone else might not get charged, but if they step one foot over that line, they'll get hammered.