| Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal. A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air. So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is. EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
|