Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!
I got an email from a reader the other day in response to a column I wrote about freedom of speech and the Charlie Hebdo attack, who asked:
“Having read your defence of free speech in tonight’s paper, I’m curious to know if you would defend the right of the “Gentlemen’s Club” members at Dalhousie University to post their despicable views on line. In other words, does freedom of expression have limits?”
This is my reply:
A good question. Generally speaking there are very very few limitations on free speech, even if the views expressed are awful.
Consider the case of a Holocaust denier. People who claim the Holocaust did not happen are not just wrong, but are spouting a racist lie. They tend to be pretty awful people who attack Jewish people in every speech or article written. There is, of course, no shortage of evidence to refute their claims, should one choose to do so. (I tend to ignore them. I also agree with Chomsky that to even enter into the discussion with a holocaust denier is to lose one’s humanity.)
So the holocaust denier says awful lies. Should their speech be protected? Yes. Because the solution to bad speech is more, better speech, not giving the state the power to silence someone because what they say is awful or offensive. We ought not give the state the power to silence those who question “truth”, even when the evidence is totally against them.
Also, as I noted, it is easy to be for free speech when the speech in question is what you like. You have to be in favour of free speech for the views you dislike, or you are not in favour of free speech.
So where, then, are the limits? This is essentially what you are asking. Can anyone say anything at anytime? Is everything said by the goons at Dalhousie U to be considered free speech?
The limit is generally drawn if through your speech you are making a threat to harm others, or cause others to be harmed. The classic example is being in a crowded theater and shouting “FIRE” when there is no fire. People could get hurt in the resulting stampede. So that is not protected as free speech. The police in Canada could charge the speaker with mischief. Similarly, if I were to say “we should kill everyone with blue eyes”, that could also be said to be speech that is not protected because I am threatening or inciting hatred or violence
In the case of DU, as I understand it, there is some debate over whether what these students said on their facebook group etc is protected as free speech. My own view of it at present is that while some of it may well be protected, as awful as it is, much of it could be viewed as inciting violence against women, and therefore not protected. From my point of view the guy who says “I hate women” is protected. He is a jerk but he is protected. The guy who says “We should drug and rape women” is inciting violence in this context, and therefore his speech is not protected.
This incident stands on the fuzzy line between what is free speech and what is not. I am not sure where the courts will go on this.
