Mill pointed out the "impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed". To make offence the test is to undermine the very freedom that can expose error. Mill then went on to say in words that may or may not apply to the present case: "If the test be offence to those whose opinions are attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever an attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, to be intemperate".
You may or may not agree with Bolt, and the judge has found that not all the facts in his articles were correct, but neither hurt nor accuracy have ever been seen as relevant in discussions of the principle of freedom of speech in our society.
In a democracy people are entitled to say what they want, regardless of who is offended, and whether their facts are correct or incorrect.
Advertisement
If they are wrong, others will refute them. We do not need Lavarch's tribunals and courts to teach us how to be good democrats.
The processes of this law I find obscene in the full meaning of the words: offensive, loathsome, ill-omened, disgusting.
The law that has made these events possible must be abolished as soon as possible.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
16 posts so far.