Replies

I'll do my best to answer. Would you use the "free speech" argument to defend a person who yelled: "FIRE", in a crowded theatre, when there was none?

No, of course not. The difference is that in this example, which is based on a popular misquote from Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion in Schenk v. United States, panic would, understandably, be immediate, and there would be no chance for anyone to rebut our panic-mongerer and point out that there was no fire before the predictable damage had been done.

In the case of Holocaust deniers or Islamofascist firebrands, their ideas, which I despise as much as you do, are expressed in an open and ongoing public discussion. People who disagree with Zundel's version of history have had ample time to rebut him, and besides, no reasonable person could say that any sort of violence MUST predictably follow from the publishing of his books. Likewise with the Koran, or our hypothetical Islamofascist imam. If he says it is God's command that all Muslims kill the infidel wherever he can be found, that's a general statement that is exposed, at least in free countries, to ample public rebuttal and rightful ridicule. Now, if he tells one or more of his followers specifically to find a crowded area and blow themselves up on Tuesday, that's quite a different matter. The difference should be clear.

It would be very interesting to see how different the reaction of many, who would have no limits on free speech, would be if their favorite web site, and its membership, were slandered (or libeled, if you prefer) with the obvious intent of causing it, and them, irreparable harm.

As has been said here before, the victims of slander and libel have access to civil redress for damages. We don't jail or criminally prosecute those who engage in slander or libel in this country, or use the police power of the state to engage in prior restraint of their speech, and for good reason. So no, I would not wish to throw liberty out the window in order to protect my favorite web site (of all things) from slander.

In the case of Holocaust deniers or Islamofascist firebrands, their ideas, which I despise as much as you do, are expressed in an open and ongoing public discussion.

Holocaust denial IS NOT about an open discussion, nor "correcting history." The Holocaust is among the most investigated and documented events in history. The agenda of the Holocaust denier is about other matters.

Regarding your words: "...(of all things)..." concerning slander of a "favorite website".

Those words stunned me because it seems to me that websites are the average person's only opportunity to voice his opinion to a large audience, and are thus of great importance to the preservation of our right of free speech.

You mentioned misinterpreting Holmes' ruling, and, at the time, I thought to ask you about a specific scenario but became involved in other matters.

The specific scenario I had in mind involves a "last minute", but well publicized, slanderous (or libelous) attack on a major political candidate, so timed as to practically prohibit rebuttal and thus adversely affect an election. I envisioned such an attack being made against an internet entity, but one playing a role such as "Swift Boat Veterans" played in the last election.

Reading the following article, this morning,:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1787913/posts

prompted me to bring up this matter again.

I wonder if you would change your opinion in such a situation?