Controversy around recently-cancelled talks in New Zealand raised important questions about free speech. Ostensibly it was threats of violence that led to speakers being “de-platformed” but there is a strong whiff of political bias. Either way, accusations of “hate speech” have been raised, and some commentators have suggested that we need laws against the expression of hateful ideas.
This is an argument that has been implicitly put forward by the Human Rights Commission with a special emphasis on “religious hate speech directed at Muslim New Zealanders” and is predicated on the assumption that we need to protect people from harmful words, much like we outlaw harm caused by physical violence.
There is no good evidence that offensive language or challenges to ideas, however provocative or unreasonable, creates such severe harm as to require legislation. However, there is reason to argue that direct threats or speech that incites direct violence should be illegal — and it is already prohibited under our existing laws (along with reasonable restrictions on defamation, and breaking contracts by sharing information or plagiarising). Advertisement
Yet, even with such a seemingly objective test as inciting violence it is even difficult to determine what is and is not speech that incites violence. For example, the Human Rights Commission did not think that shouting “…bash the Jewish, cut their heads off…” in an Auckland protest was worthy of investigation, let alone prosecution.
Speak Your Mind