Free speech is often claimed to be one of the natural rights granted to us by our very existence and it is perceived as an absolute that may never be treaded upon. To disagree, it is suggested, is to side with the ideals of authoritarianism, with the enemies of liberty.

According to this, expressing hateful ideals should not be a crime, even if the focus is on breeding division and fueling hate. Social ostracization would serve as a fair and natural censor and only pen would have the right to fight the pen. The government, however, would have no right to interfere, regardless of popular opinion.

But what should we do when people — be it as individuals or as a society — are worried that unregulated free speech is being used to cause suffering? Indeed, free speech is commonly used to cause suffering, such as to insult others, but no sane mind could claim that it should always be illegal to cause suffering.

So, how can we discriminate between simply hurting the feelings of others, such as might happen if one notes that the crime rate is highest amongst a certain group, and threatening others, as happened when James Scott Richardson and Alex Kulbashian decided to start the Tri-City Skins and Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team websites. These two individuals, and more like them, have been fined by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, showing that the government is ready to punish people who put free speech to vile ends, even if those ends are only threatening in a very indirect way and towards no individual in particular.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text