OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[M Holmes]

Nick Medford writes:

> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:35:47 GMT, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:

> >Nope.  Generally unreasonable responses are not regarded as
> >forseeable.

> As I said before, once the flag-burning, death threats, and actual
> violence were already underway, I would have thought it blindingly
> obvious that more of the same would follow the reprintings (which is
> not to argue for or against those reprintings, necessarily), but if
> you honestly believe that this was "not forseeable", then we will have
> to agree to disagree.

No I agree that it was. At that point though people were essentially
responding to the exercise of freedom of speech with threats of murder,
arson, and other illegal acts. It became important to assert our rights
to FoS and some newspapeers did this by reprinting the cartoons.

It'd have been much the same if Arab countries had demanded we quit
eating bacon sarnies because the Koran says it's forbidden.  A fair
response to it would be to build a bacon sarnie so large it could be
seen from space and invite all to participate.  If folks get their
knickers in a twist over it then that's just too bad.  If they murder as
a result then you cannot be held responsible for incitement in the same
way as saying "Let's kill all the infidels!"

Which I guess is a way of saying that "Resonably forseeable" is
necessary but not sufficient.

FoFP