Comments on: Freedom of Speech, or Terrorism by Proxy?

By: Serdar

Serdar — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:49:26 +0000

Absolutely. I was one of the folks who followed the David Irving libel case very closely, because it was a beautiful showcase for how Britain’s libel laws are terribly one-sided and can be used SLAPP-like. Fortunately he picked the worst possible fight and came out of it both financially and reputationally ruined (not that his reputation was all that good to begin with, but this was the last shovelful of dirt over the coffin).

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:59:10 +0000

Yes, hate-speech laws are difficult to draft in ways that can’t be abused to stifle legitimate criticism (see also Britain’s hopelessly broken libel laws and the way they’ve been misused by wealthy crooks to silence anyone who tries to call them out on their wrongdoing). Better to restrict it to explicit incitements to violence.

In terms of moral rather than purely legal responsibility, though…

By: Serdar

Serdar — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:09:23 +0000

From what I’ve seen, hate speech laws in the U.S. tend to be pretty narrowly defined, so you have to do a lot of work to get what you say labeled as such. It’s not something that can be flung around casually, and shouldn’t. It’s reserved for cross-burners and lynch mobs, which is the right idea.