(Updated 13/6)
In response to an emailed comment by a certain reader, I feel it is appropriate to clarify my stand on free speech.
I frequently say I believe in complete freedom of speech, no hate-speech exceptions, etc. However when I say complete freedom of speech, I use the term only to refer to expressed opinions. My stand does not extend to protection of false factual claims. I do indeed believe it should be a civil offence to make specific false statements about others. In other words, I do not advocate repeal of laws against defamation.
(Of course, in some countries it is fashionable to use defamation laws to punish statements that are essentially opinions, or claims that are offensive but true. Needless to say, I find both disgusting.)
There are certain other circumstances where speech can be legitimately regulated. Without discussing them individually, let me just mention that they all fall in one of the two narrow categories listed below:
a) Making unambiguously false statements that directly hurt others. This includes defamation as discussed above, as well as instances of fraudulent claims in certain circumstances (e.g. in advertising) or situations like shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
b) Causing an imminent likelihood of violence through your speech. This includes ordering your followers to commit a crime, directly inciting a riot and using fighting words (defined in a very narrow sense as in current US law). The word ‘imminent’ is important; thus speech that worsens communal harmony would not qualify, nor would mere advocacy of a crime.
In particular, I believe that offending someone’s feelings through your opinions (e.g. hate speech, religious views) or depictions (e.g. obscene pictures, blasphemous cartoons) should not be legally actionable.
