The right to free speech

[Soldier of Macedon]

And on what basis should the law be determined?

The laws should be determined on the basis of common sense because that forms part of the fabric of a functioning civil society. As I said, I am not an expert in this field nor do I have the time to carry out any sort of extensive research to ascertain how such laws should be defined or applied in the multitude of possible scenarios. I can only present some cases where I feel there is an obvious need for restriction to free speech. What is your opinion on the previous scenario?

On whose values?

On those who consider civility an important value.

[Vangelovski]

The laws should be determined on the basis of common sense because that forms part of the fabric of a functioning civil society. As I said, I am not an expert in this field nor do I have the time to carry out any sort of extensive research to ascertain how such laws should be defined or applied in the multitude of possible scenarios. I can only present some cases where I feel there is an obvious need for restriction to free speech. What is your opinion on the previous scenario?

On those who consider civility an important value.

I don't claim to be an expert either nor am I against the idea that some speech should be restricted (as I've already stated). But your proposal only opens more questions, such as what is common sense and who determines what common sense is? The same could be asked about civility. My point, from the beginning, was that arguing for the restriction of speech is easy, but actually doing it is open to a lot of abuse. Also, the state is capable of far more abuse of power than individuals are capable of abusing their rights (if in fact such a thing is possible, as I would say its an oxymoron). So as there is no confusion, I would not say that , for example, defamation was an abuse of free speech because there is no right to defame someone.

[Philosopher]

There would be no point, because no laws have been broken.

Ah, but there is. The whole point of filing a complaint is to document an incident. So if something were to happen in the future, like if she were attacked or went missing, police would have some leads.

To what end? There was no physical threat.

There was no physical threat, but that does not preclude the possibility of a physical threat in future encounters. Hence, the point of documenting the event with the police and bearing arms.

And risk the safety of herself and her daughter in the process? Where is the civility in a society where everybody freely insults each other?

Again, that is the point of filing a police report to document the event. That is the point of being armed in case of an attack. She has a right to remain silent but also has a right to verbally abuse them back. No one said this is civil, and no one said she has to act uncivil. It is her choice.

Would you find this example an acceptable circumstance for your female relatives to endure on a daily basis?

The issue is not whether it is acceptable. It is not. The issue is whether free speech should be curtailed because people are offended with words. I do not believe that it should. You see curtailing free speech by government edict as forcing societal etiquette. I see it as an over reach of government and in time open to government abuse.

That depends on the nature of the content. I am not an expert in this field and have not carried out comprehensive studies on the various situations that have and can occur. But I am sensible enough to know when a line has been crossed. And that should be the starting point.

Take the following example. A revisionist historian in France writes a book about the Holocaust of World War II. Based on years of research, he concludes with the argument that only two million Jews died, and that their death was not based on a systematic extermination policy by Adolph Hitler, but due to disease, hunger, and allied bombing. Jews the world over are enraged. They demand action.

In France such a person can go to prison.

What are your thoughts?

Here is another example. A columnist of an influential European newspaper writes a column about the founder of Islam, and writes that historical evidence supports the thesis that he was a sexual pervert and a pedophile. He was a butcher and massacred tens of thousands of people. Mohammad, he states, was an illiterate person and blended Arabic mythologies with a profound ignorance of the Old and New Testaments, and formulated Islam out of this ignorance. Two billion Muslims freak out, enraged at these words. They start looting here and there. Mayhem erupts everywhere in Europe and the Middle East.

Do you believe the columnist's words should be protected under free speech? Or do you believe it is an example of hate speech? Do you believe such speech should be censored because two billion people in the world will violently react to this column?

Here is another example. An influential professor writes a column in the New York Times that Christianity is plagiarized from earlier Mediterranean mythologies. That Jesus never existed. Or if he did exist, his mother was a “harlot”. That Jesus was a fraud. The New Testament is a fraud. And Paul of Tarsus was the real author of Christianity and Paul was a crazed individual.

Very few Christians in the world protest. And those who do do so peacefully. No riots. No mayhem. But civil debates ensue.

Should the professor's speech be protected? Should the merits of free speech depend on the reactions of the community targeted? Should free speech be banned in instances where a community is likely to violently react? And should it be protected in instances where a community is not likely to violently react?

[Tomche Makedonche]

Zdravo Philosopher,

Just to clarify, are we to understand that you are against anti-discrimination laws in general?, or just laws that prohibit discrimination that has been conveyed verbally?

[Philosopher]

Zdravo Philosopher,

Just to clarify, are we to understand that you are against anti-discrimination laws in general?, or just laws that prohibit discrimination that has been conveyed verbally?

I think I made myself very clear. One must distinguish between strictly private properties, associations, et al with public.

A public property, like a hospital or a school, that is tax payer funded, should not have the right to discriminate.