Somebody's quickly finding out that "free speech" doesn't mean the freedom to spew potentially-libelous bullshit.Last summer I took the unusual (at least among my progressive peers) stance of defending FD when they got a complaint from the CHRC. I still believe that the last thing any of us should want to see is websites being shut down for being "offensive" -- "offensive" being a pretty subjective term -- and that's where this kind of thing goes. But I was a little shocked at the level of idiocy FD and its constituency displayed in response to the complaint. 90-page threads hurling insults and making veiled threats at the complainant are usually a bad idea -- there's freedom of speech and there's freedom of stupidity.
When the complaint was dropped, FD and friends were therefore so emboldened that when someone more tenacious came along, they saw no reason to respond any differently. Stupidity then escalated from the merely offensive to what might turn out to be outright libel. Yay team. Thick as they are, today it seems to be finally dawning on them just what they've wrought. Threads are disappearing, flustered and justifiably fearful apologies are being made, but...
... you can't unring a bell -- can you say "google cache"? "screenshots"? This one's done like dinner. And knowing how litigious this Richard Warman guy is even when he's merely "offended", I shudder to think of his response at being (possibly) libeled.
I wonder if it's starting to occur to these "free speech defenders" how much damage they actually do to the cause of free expression... Naahhh. What was I thinking to even consider such a thing!?
|