From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999 - 07:09:59 MST
Timothy Bates wrote:
> Is that a reasonable position: free speech = all speech which does not
> directly aid specific acts of violence?
yes.
> Food for thought:
>
> What is speech that it is free where action is not? When is speech action?
An offer of contract for an illegal action is conspiracy. Conspiracy is in fact
an act of speech and/or assembly with the sole intent of planning an illegal
act. Even though speech and assembly are protected rights, when they are done to
illegal ends they are not protected (illegal in that the intent is to infringe
on the rights of others, I don't count victimless crimes and/or political
advocacy in this category myself, however others may see differently).
> Why are we not free to speak lies (that is libel)?
When they cause damage to another's reputation or ability to earn income. The
thing I don't like about libel in US courts is that not only must the speech be
false, but must be made with malicious intent, which is almost impossible to
prove.
> Note too that under British Common Law, unlike US law, being correct is not
> a sufficient defense against libel. So in Britain you are not even free to
> speak the truth, if it harms another person's reputation. For reasons
> related to this, publication of books similar to the Bell Curve can be
> deemed a crime in the UK, though this is seldom enforced these days.
Yes, this is a vestige of the aristocracy protecting itself from its follies. As
long as the Brits are getting rid of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords,
if they are going to throw the baby out the window, they might as well toss the
bath water with it too....
I doubt they will be so logical.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:11 MST