OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[M Holmes]

trev writes:

> 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.

Such as the "Piss Christ" exhibit or even Hawkwind producing "Right to
Decide"?

It's only a problem if someone is inspired to do something illegal and
then only if the artist can be regarded as inciting them to have done
so.

Thus someone saying "Let's burn all the infidels!" is problematic
exercise of free speech because it could be reasonable to expect that
where there are multiple halfwits listening, one of them might take
these words as inspiration. Someone doing so as a result of a cartoon is
less obviously forseeable as a predictable response.

Let's say the BNP published a cartoon of what the Ku Klux Klan would
have called a lynching though. If someone acted on that, a jury might
convict under such a "reasonable man could forsee" law.

It's the fact that there will always be borderline cases that means
these things have to be left to a jury to decide.

FoFP