Reply #121: Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong

[intaglio]

Holmes' opinion in the case where he used that analogy was that free speech was curtailed by a test of "clear and present danger." That test came back to bite him on the butt when later he found himself in the minority regarding the test "clear and present danger and so the rights of people to protest were curtailed as well.

Christopher Hitchens once, memorably, opened his part of a debate by shouting "Fire!" in a lecture hall and then proceeded to destroy Holmes' analogy.

Debate on Free Speech. part 1

This entire series is one of the best defenses of free speech I know and a great incitement to actually think. Note that he does not defend as right the views of holocaust deniers, racists or homophobes, just that if you remove their right to free speech you also remove your own right to free speech. Pastor Jones was foolish, ignorant and prejudiced to do what he did but the actions of the imams and their followers were worse - even allowing for their comparative ignorance.

That does not mean that incitement to violence cannot be punished, just that it must be proved that it is an incitement to violence. Crying out that homosexuals must be killed is hateful, but so is calling for the death of homophobes; but if a hater just says that they hate and do not lie about the thing hated or call for violence or give approval to the violence that results they must, unfortunately, be allowed to do so.

The laws of libel, slander and copyright have long been used by Scientology to defend itself from examination and prosecution. How much more would a law banning the defaming of religion or damage to religious texts defend that nasty little cult? Indeed imagine that such a law was in effect back in the 60's when Mormonism was still, exclusively white because of Book of Mormon said that blacks were a lesser race.

Debate on Free Speech. part 2
Debate on Free Speech. part 3