OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Nick Medford]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:06:21 GMT, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:

>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.

Yes, that's the argument for the reprints. I am not sure about this though.
As a hypothetical, suppose some newspaper printed some cartoons or
caricatures which many black people living in the UK found objectionable,
and let's further suppose that areas such as Moss Side and Brixton erupted
in fury as a consequence. Would it really be "important", or even
acceptable, for the cartoons to then be reprinted all over the place in
support of the free speech principle?

>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.

I agree this might be fair, but would it be wise? And where does it leave
your earlier criterion of "forseeable harm" as the limit to FoS? Because
you now seem to be saying that forseeable harm should be the determinant of
limiting FoS, EXCEPT where the principle of free speech is itself at stake.
And clearly this exemption could be held to cover just about anything.

I think one of the most difficult things about this debate is it brings
into focus the question of principles vs practicalities. Does it make sense
to assert and uphold what is a perfectly good and noble *idea*, when by
doing so all sorts of real-world mayhem is unleashed? On the other hand, if
you *don't* uphold the idea, what else might you be risking? And the
difficulty of navigating between these two opposing questions is precisely
why this issue is far from simple.

>If folks get their
>knickers in a twist over it then that's just too bad.

Perhaps... but could you really explain that so airily to, let's say, the
family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if they made it known
that they held you partly responsible for provoking the violence?

Nick