OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[trev]

to confuse matters, how about introducing artistic license into the debate?
there might be a predictable consequence sparked off by a work of art which
inflames passions to act upon it's message.

trev


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Medford" <nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech


> 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
>