How we should - and shouldn’t - ban extremist speech
Professor Eric Heinze has written an essay for Gov.uk. This is part of an essay series exploring the intricate balance between protecting freedom of speech, upholding the rule of law and combating extremism.
Abstract
Most western democracies today penalise extreme speech in some form. These penalties spark little controversy when the speaker utters the provocative words in the course of perpetrating independently illegal harm to persons or property. But how should we treat extreme speech when it is voiced outside those contexts? We must first acknowledge that there can be no fixed definition of ‘extremism’, given how easily the term can be manipulated for political ends. Moreover, doubt persists about banning speech solely on grounds that certain abhorrent ideas are expressed in general terms and to general audiences, provoking moral outrage but without clear links to independently harmful conduct. This article draws two conclusions about the policies that longstanding, stable and prosperous democracies (LSPDs) should adopt. First, in contexts of live exchange, LSPDs should not ordinarily penalise speech addressed in general terms to general audiences solely on grounds of the repugnant ideas expressed; however (ii) the far greater risks of electronic platforms do warrant democratic controls.
Read the full essay, How we should - and shouldn’t - ban extremist speech, on Gov.uk.
More information:
Eric Heinze is Professor of Professor of Law and Humanities and Director of the Centre for Law, Democracy, and Society at Queen Mary University of London.