Hi, The current row over the Danish cartoons and an earlier thread on Holocaust denial has led me to think a bit about the limits of free speech and the legitimate responses to it.
What is the proper legal response to the free speech that you object to? As i understand it, libel law applies only when legal action is brought by someone who has been directly affected by the speech. So in this case only Muhammed himself could sue. What is the recourse against something offensive or untruthful but which doesn't apply personally to oneself? For example, could I sue someone for claiming Homeopathy cures cancer? Saying that could be a public health problem, after all. My basic question comes down to this: the right to free speech has always been limited by the fact that the speaker would be forced to take the consequences of his speech. Calling someone a liar may get you sued for libel, for example. However, there doesn't seem any consequence for being gratuitously offensive against a religion. -- b
