Free Speech Thought-Experiment
Suppose an individual, S:
1. Publicly, repeatedly denigrates group G.
2. S knows that what S says about G is false.
3. We know that what S says about G is false.
4. We know that S knows that what S says about G is false.
5. S does not intend to incite violence against G in the immediate future.
6. What S says has no tendency to incite violence against G in the immediate future.
7. S intends to incite violence against G in the non-immediate future.
8. What S says has a tendency to incite violence against G in the non-immediate future.
9. We know that what S says will incite violence against G in the non-immediate future.
Question:
Ignoring First Amendment and other legal considerations (e.g. supposing that we're living in the state of nature, or in a civilized country without a Bill of Rights, or whatever):
Does S have a right to say the things he's saying about G?
i.e.:
Are we obligated to / should we tolerate S's speech?
posted by Winston Smith at
10:41 AM
4 Comments:
No. Slander is not covered by the first amendment. There is some wiggle room for hyperbole, but flat out lies of this sort are not protected, and are grounds for a lawsuit. (That is a civil case, however. It is not grounds for a criminal case.)
It isn't slander because it is about a group.
If S says, say "Asians are terrible drivers and need to get off the road," and S has a secret motivation to ethnically cleanse her area of Asians, she should be allowed to say it. Even if we know that due to the rabid ferocity with which the local populace upholds road conventions that anti-Asian rioting is likely based on those comments, and even if you know that violence will occur at some point because reasons (although #9 seems like a hard thing to *know*).
If you are in a position to stop the speech, you are in a position to stop the future violence. Violence should be prevented, speech should be allowed.
^I'm not sure if slander is the correct estimation of what is going on in the thought experiment. Isn't that offense typically directed at specific individuals? I'm no expert on civil law, but I've never heard of any person under threat of prosecution for disparaging against racial groups, for instance.
If you don't like that evaluation, then we can just conceive of a different case.
Public officials are largely exempt from pressing civil charges for what would constitute slander or libel against private citizens. So, let us assume that everything in the thought experiment is held fixed, and S falsely claims that hispanic politicians typically do/are XYZ. Should we tolerate the speech in that case? It doesn't seem like the slander argument will work here, and the restriction on speech would have to be made on different grounds.
Furthermore, it seems to me that this thought experiment isn't strictly about what is allowed within the scope of American law.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home