OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Chris Allen]

>
> > > > Try me.  I'll certainly give it a go.  Just hold people responsible
> > > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or
> > > > harmful.
>
>         If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any
> cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a
> predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the
> notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that
> idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel
> is still safe there for now.
>
>
What happened to "ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law"?