The following was sent to me by a correspondent. It reminded me of someone I once knew who building up with bitterness would often explain that they were a person that spoke with an 'open mind.' For that particular person, speaking with an open mind was in fact similar to letting inhibitions and good sense go, to be consumed with anger, self 'righteous' in belief, anger. I think the following displays, that being angry or consumed with a self belief in righteousness or a noble cause is the best time to slow down, to think things through in a way that seems demonstrably impossible for the persecutors. Persecution, defamatory harassment by way of ignorance, fear or anger is not free speech by any measure.
THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
So often this right is used by Counterspinners to justify their persecution of David Bain and Joe Karam and anyone that supports him.
They have even proclaimed it’s part of our Human Rights for them to criticise and abuse anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
It may come as a surprise to them that freedom of speech is not a Human Right, or any other sort of right in New Zealand. We have no positive law or statute that recognises and protects freedom of speech.
The principle, according to Bruce Cameron B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, “is that anyone may say and publish what he chooses without prior licence or approval (film censorship affords an exception), but he is liable to be punished if he infringes the law”. This is something I’m sure the Counterspinners are likely to find out, if they continue along their present course.
“Freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, exists in this country simply because the exceptions to it are limited”. Limited, but that doesn’t mean nonexistent. There are legal restrictions to free speech in many areas of law, including indecency, defamation, contempt of Court and breach of peace.
The Counterspinners would do well to note that libel and slander are criminal offences. Slander, being so, if it is spoken within the hearing of 12 or more persons at a public meeting OR if it is broadcasted (such as on a public website). As Bruce Cameron states, “ unlike civil cases, truth is not always a defence to criminal defamation”. The defendant must show the matter was true, and that the publication was for the public benefit. Sadly, defending the reputation of a dead man, is unlikely to be regarded as a ‘public benefit’.
As Bruce Cameron reminds us “the converse of freedom of speech is freedom to be silent, something almost as important in a free society”. He refers to this as a privilege against self-incrimination. Clearly a concept the Counterspinners have never heard or thought of, considering the events of the past week.
To continue to demonstrate their careless regard for the law, by saying whatever they want, regardless of who their hate speech hurts, is foolhardy. This group would do well to remember, ignorance, is no defence.
No comments:
Post a Comment