Continental Divide

Years ago I recall reading essays from law professors who didn't approve of First Amendment "absolutism." They thought in general people should be allowed to say what they want, but if you make others feel bad, well--that's why we need speech codes. Some words are an assault that don't further debate and shouldn't be tolerated. And they could tell what those words were. One place they'd point to was Europe, which had no First Amendment, and so demonstrated it wasn't so bad to balance the value of the speech against its offensiveness.

I often wonder how these people feel today when they read things like Dutch politician Geert Wilders being denied entry into Britain because, due to his "hate speech" against a religion, he represents a security threat. They may say this isn't about free speech, but that's what it comes down to--and there are plenty examples of people in their own countries in Europe running afoul of hate speech laws for insulting religion. Is this the balance they were hoping for?

PS Here's an interesting piece from a British political official defending the ban. Note how artfully the authorities can divide the acceptable from the unnaceptable, as no doubt they would in America if allowed to.

Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it. The decision to stop people from exercising this fundamental right must never be taken lightly. Neither should a decision to ban people from visiting this country. As a result, I have in the past defended people with some particularly odious views, such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr Frederick Toben.

In a civilised society, however, there has to be a dividing line between the right to freedom of speech and when it topples over into incitement to hatred and violence. In my opinion, Geert Wilders' revolting film Fitna crosses this line, as its shocking images of violence and emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.

The key liberal principle was enunciated by John Stuart Mill in his essay "On Liberty", in which he stated that the only legitimate reason for coercing someone against their will was to prevent harm to others. It is precisely the prevention of harm to minorities that justifies the restrictions to Mr Wilders' freedom of speech.

I generally quote things to comment on them, but I think I'll let this stand alone.