Freeedom of Speech

[Jonathan Jarrett]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:08:33AM +0000, M Holmes typed out:
> pete howe writes:
> > such is the sorry nature of some so-called "human
> > beings"..so in reality, complete freedom of speech can never be
> > totally justified
>
> Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible for
> predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or harmful.

        There's the weasel room right there, in the word `predictable'. Especially when you introduce
statistics into it. We can predict, perhaps, or so it could be claimed, that a certain number of people will
infringe such rights, so how `predictable' does something need to be before you can legislate?

> > due to the minority that will abuse it.
>
> It's about as reasonable to fix that problem by limiting freedom of
> speech as it is to fix speeding by banning cars.

        Surely not by banning cars, but by "limiting" their use to, say, 70 mph and less in certain areas. Oh
wait. Limiting and banning are not the same thing in either case.

        I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far the opposition has its arguments better
marshalled. Yours,
                   Jon

--
        Jonathan Jarrett                Birkbeck College, London
                 jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk
        --------------------------------------------------------
  "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits)