[Dialogue] free speech

[jlepps at pc.jaring.my]

Thanks for the insights. I agree that "insult, demean, and vilify" do 
not carry the degree of negativity that I intended. Your words (or 
Canada's words) are better: "intimidate, harm or terrify." So my past 
sentence should read: "Might that not also apply to statements that 
intimidate, harm or terrify other people?" That gets closer to my intent.

There is also the issue of provocateurs that Wayne mentions. There 
are those who deliberately "...bait those who allow themselves to be 
baited." According to an account of a student who worked in Denmark 
at the time of the initial publication of the cartoons, the newspaper 
deliberately baited the immigrant Muslim community...but they had no 
idea how far repercussions would occur. And apparently there were 
circumstances to which the newspaper was responding that makes the 
response understandable, if not excusable. So it's a very complex issue.

Yes, political campaigns tend to verge on distortion, insult, and 
vilification. And this we take to be free speech, if not at its best, 
at least within the bounds of acceptability.

But if we can outlaw yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there 
is no fire, and outlaw child pornography, might there not be a way to 
outlaw this kind of provocation that causes such unnecessary harm?