Freedom of speech/the press
Nov. 28th, 2007 07:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Here's a good opportunity to ponder the limits of freedom of speech, brought to us by the Internatonal Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Three media executives had their sentences reduced for inciting violence during the Rwanda Genocide.
Personally, I don't think this is an exercise of speech when you're urging people to kill others. Or providing lists of people to be killed.
Three media executives had their sentences reduced for inciting violence during the Rwanda Genocide.
Personally, I don't think this is an exercise of speech when you're urging people to kill others. Or providing lists of people to be killed.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 06:29 pm (UTC)Troublesome.
I happen to both agree and disagree with you; freedom of speech does mean, in fact, that you can say whatever you want. It's morals/common sense that dictates what you should be saying.
The other half of the equation is, speech is just speech. If I yell "fire!" into a crowd and incite a riot, the more intelligent folk in that crowd will first seek to verify my claims before flying off the handle. So, do you cater to what's smart, or to the stupid people? I don't know.
The thing about this is, it touches exactly on what our government is doing right now. They're slowly taking away our freedoms and liberties in the name of security. I've been complaining for years that the wrong people get assassinated, and the ones that actual do harm are let alone to continue; if nutjob overhears me one day and plugs W and says I told him to do it, am I liable for the murder too? Providing an address doesn't really change the fact that he chose to act. If we add intent on my part, that I was actively trying to coerce people to do it, we still have to address the issue of those who chose to act.
I don't know. This is muddy in my head.
-elf-
no subject
Date: 2007-11-28 08:16 pm (UTC)And shame on the ICTR for reducing their sentences.