OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Nick Medford]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:00:47 GMT, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:

>Jonathan Jarrett writes:
>
>> > > > 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.
>
>Use a "reasonable man" clause. Basically if a reasonable man would be
>expected to forsee certain consequences as a result of their exercise of
>free speech then those consequences are forseeable.

This is highly problematic. For example- once this cartoons furore was
already underway, would a reasonable man have been expected to foresee that
reprinting them was likely to inflame the situation further (i.e. bring
about an entirely *unreasonable* response from large numbers of the
offended, a response involving deaths and injuries)?

Surely the answer is yes, such a response was all too predictable- in which
case your argument ends up being *against* those reprintings, which is
presumably not what you intended.

Nick