Reply #266: I don't maintain that there are... [View All]

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...no instances of hate speech that cross the line between what should be protected under free speech and what amounts to incitement. But when you talk about sending someone away for hate speech which rises to the level of incitement, there should be a clear and direct link between the words written or spoken, and a specific criminal act being encouraged.

I do not accept that Holocaust denial, in and of itself, rises to this level simply by virtue of the fact that it's Holocaust denial. I do, however, accept that some kinds of Holocaust denial related speech very well could amount to incitement. If, in a public speech, a Holocaust denier addressing a large group of Skinheads specifically encourages them to destroy property, or do violence to Jews, or anyone else, this would be incitement, but NOT because of Holocaust denial.

The specific alleged incitement language in any given instance should be weighed and tested independent of any general purpose, cause, or political aim of an overall speech. A Holocaust denial speech, Rwanda genocide denial speech, or a denial of 200 years of slavery in the U.S. speech -- all despicable as they may be, are, and should be, protected under free speech with the exception of clear, identifiable, specific language that satisfies a stringent test for incitement.

A slippery slope to be sure -- any two people who might agree with my rhetoric above would likely run into disagreement in weighing the many various specific cases of alleged incitement. No easy answers -- no black and white here. Such is life.