Alan Massie in the Speccie on "No country for Free Speech"
Great article in the Spectator by Allan Massie called Scotland: No Country for Free Speech.
The article was particularly inspired by a tweet from "Police Scotland" but much of it applies to the whole UK.
Now the free speech which I have always believed in is free speech within the law.
It does not include freedom to libel someone or to incite to violence. United States supreme court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was in general a strong supporter of free speech, once ruled that
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
However, if we want to remain a free society, that kind of caveat should be applied sparingly. The burden of proof should always be on those who want to make expression of an opinion illegal - and that includes an opinion which offends people if it does not amount to harassment or incitement to violence or other criminal behaviour.
There should also be a clear distinction between statements which I might argue that a reasonable person would find offensive - for instance, things which I block on this blog such as insulting the recently deceased on an obit post which their family and friends might read - and things which should be banned or prosecuted.
I've blocked the odd comment which might have exposed me to a libel action but I can't think of a single comment I have barred on this blog which I think was bad enough to justify the use of a single second of police time.
It's my blog and I have the right to remove things I think are out of order, but that does not stop anyone setting up their own blog to make the same point and I absolutely do not believe that everything I find offensive should be illegal.
Yes, we need to protect vulnerable people against cyber-bullying, but this should be done carefully and with a sense of proportion.
Going over the top in labelling anyone who expresses an unpopular or offensive action online a "troll" and going after them with a legal action is not the solution,
The article was particularly inspired by a tweet from "Police Scotland" but much of it applies to the whole UK.
Now the free speech which I have always believed in is free speech within the law.
It does not include freedom to libel someone or to incite to violence. United States supreme court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, who was in general a strong supporter of free speech, once ruled that
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
However, if we want to remain a free society, that kind of caveat should be applied sparingly. The burden of proof should always be on those who want to make expression of an opinion illegal - and that includes an opinion which offends people if it does not amount to harassment or incitement to violence or other criminal behaviour.
There should also be a clear distinction between statements which I might argue that a reasonable person would find offensive - for instance, things which I block on this blog such as insulting the recently deceased on an obit post which their family and friends might read - and things which should be banned or prosecuted.
I've blocked the odd comment which might have exposed me to a libel action but I can't think of a single comment I have barred on this blog which I think was bad enough to justify the use of a single second of police time.
It's my blog and I have the right to remove things I think are out of order, but that does not stop anyone setting up their own blog to make the same point and I absolutely do not believe that everything I find offensive should be illegal.
Yes, we need to protect vulnerable people against cyber-bullying, but this should be done carefully and with a sense of proportion.
Going over the top in labelling anyone who expresses an unpopular or offensive action online a "troll" and going after them with a legal action is not the solution,
Comments