Should we restrict freedom of speech?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

This thread was inspired by the case against Gert Wilders in the Netherlands. This is a more general topic though, focusing on all cases of the law intervening in freedom of speech.

This is an interesting question IMO something that is often debated? Out of interest, should we consider restricting this right when dealing with ethnic/religious groups?

I've tried to include a poll which I think covers the key possibilities. I've only included ethnic/religious groups in these possibilities since homophobia and the suchlike are much more hotly debated topics.

1. Freedom of speech should not be regulated - say what you like, regardless of how violent or obscene, how you like to who you like with no risk of any form of conviction.

2. Freedom of speech needs mild regulation against incitement of violence against ethnic/religious groups - say what you like as long as it doesn't encourage violence and/or physical actions to be taken against the group you are criticize. What is said should be taken in context of course - say it on stage as part of a stand up comedy routine then fine. At a political rally on the other hand, not fine

3. Freedom of speech needs moderate regulation to prevent major unfounded criticism against certain ethnic/religious groups - by major criticism, I mean saying things like "group x are evil" as well as inciting violence, for example "group x should be beaten up and killed where-ever you find them". What is said should be taken in context and exceptions should be made for facts. I think that this is about the level of regulation that exists in most of Western Europe. It certainly is in the UK at any rate.

4. Freedom of speech needs serious regulation to prevent ethnic/religious groups from criticising each other - this here is any sort of criticism - you wouldn't for example, be able to say that "group x are causing divisions in our society" or "group x are the root cause of crime". Milder statements should be taken in context and exceptions should be made for facts.

5. Freedom of speech is an obstruction to a civilised society - no facts and no opinions criticising any ethnic or religious groups should be allowed and nothing should be taken in context. Anything that any religious or ethnic group finds offensive should be punishable.

6. Gah! - self explanatory

I take the stance of number two, a little bit of regulation being a required evil. One is a little too open ended, allowing anybody to encourage people open to indoctrination into violence against others. Anything more than that however, is an attack upon our freedoms and totally un-necessary - any individual should be able to say whatever they like as long as it can't directly lead to physical harm. Of course, methods should be attempted to try and prevent "hate speech" from appearing, but these should involve education and government campaigns rather the involvement of the legal system.

So, what do you guys think

[Brenus]

I am in favour of very clear regulations: All speeches or books, pamphlets, leaflets or other kind of communications should be banned if they called to massive killing others due to their differences, or for fun: Err, except war situation of course.

Or all authors should share the responsibilities of what they preached when some lunatic(s) just do what they were saying, e.g. Robert Brasillach in France was sentenced to death and executed February the 6th 1945 because during years he said to kill Jews was right in the Je suis Partout newspaper, and some just did it.

[Strike For The South]

Its not freedom if you restrict it.

[rory_20_uk]

Its not freedom if you restrict it.

But it can be anarchy if you don't

Should people be allowed to make claims that they state is backed by hard evidence when there isn't any - and then claim freedom of speech if challenged / sued?

I'm OK with freedom as long as it is clear that things are either one's point of view (the queen is evil / America is Satan) or whether you're purporting fact (a study clearly shows that all plastics cause brain damage) . The latter I would wish for the person to be culpable if they're basically making it up.

[CrossLOPER]

I want to choose the "no restriction" option, but only because I prefer conditions to restrictions. Want to say that a group a,b or c is out to destroy/kill/screw up x, y or z? You must provide back up. Basically, if your racial slur to actual information if messed up, you position should be publicly called into question. I'm not saying deny the right to assemble because the a person is incapable of producing a high-school level platform, I just want to hear actual evidence.

[Lemur]

I voted #2, which is very close to what we have in the U.S.A. Direct incitement to violence shouldn't be legal, sorry. Not unless you're a drill sergeant.

Just to be crystal clear: Direct incitement of violence. As in, "In this book I explain why we should kill all of the red-headed people." That should carry a penalty. As opposed to, "In this book I explain why red-headed people are idiots who pee their beds." Which should be legal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No regulations on freedom of speech - however, there is nothing wrong with, for example, a libel lawsuit.

[CrossLOPER]

No regulations on freedom of speech - however, there is nothing wrong with, for example, a libel lawsuit.

That's similar to what I'm thinking.

[Furunculus]

Freedom of speech needs mild regulation against incitement of violence against groups

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I put number two, but I do believe that the "clear and present danger" standard must apply.

[Furunculus]

what is the clear and present danger business?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Incitement to violence is not enough. Such incitement must be occurring at a time when there exists a realistic likelihood of inciting that violence.

Yelling "FIRE!" while standing on a soapbox at an intersection is not a realistic incitement to panic.

Calling President Bush a murdering warmonger is not incitement, unless you then encourage an attack on him while he is present or an attack on other's and their property as a means of vengeance.

In other words, there must exist a "Clear and Present Danger" in the effort to incite. Hot air should not be restricted.