"In a society where there is true free speech people could say anything without censorship and the people would simply dismiss or accept this information based on their personal judgement..."
No. I'm sorry, but this is NOT what free speech is about - and possibly this kind of misunderstanding is what informs a lot of problems around the idea.
Free speech is never a simple issue of "saying/writing what I like, whenever and wherever I like, and leave it to everyone else to deal with it". It doesn't take a genius to see where that would lead.
Free speech always (and quite rightly) comes with restrictions. The freedom to say and write what you want has to be balanced against the extent to which such words may harm others. Slander and libel are examples; the only defence if anyone is charged with either of these is that what was said was factually true. And, in practice, even this comes at a price - the legal costs of dealing with such issues mean that, for example, HJ's website is not going to allow anything to get that far - and why should it? No-one has a right to use this free site to put anything that the website doesn't want, for whatever reason.
There are also, in UK law, restrictions about specific areas of social sensitivity - hate speech, for example (expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation); on the basis of general consensus, such language is abhorrent and legislation prohibits it; obscenity is another area; national or public security, perjury also.
What "free speech" does mean is freedom from censorship (i.e. state interference in what is said/written), but with restrictions.
|