Comment Re:*Everybody* is guilty of something ... (Score 1) 565
Here in the U.S., we like free speech; it is a foreign concept, in our degree of belief in the idea, to nearly all other nations, even western nations. We are permitted the freedom to comment on trials and state that we believe in somebody's guilt or innocence. Canada, OTOH, follows the less-free model you describe, in which such speech is considered "tampering".
Personally, I do not believe that speech which causes direct harm should, *necessarily*, be banned. That is a very dangerous idea -- who decides what is to be banned -- you? Or me? Or (in reality) some faceless politician who cares nothing about either of us except whether he will get our vote (or, convince us not to vote, leaving a -1 smaller pool of other voters to persuade in his direction)?
Further, let's be rigorous in our thinking. What, precisely, is "direct harm"? Do tabloids cause "direct harm" to the reputation of individuals when scandals or nude photos are published? Surely to some degree. But, in the case of celebrities, do such postings in fact cause people to retain interest in those celebrities -- thereby maintaining the relevance of those people? Advertisers have a saying: "there is no such thing as bad publicity". Perhaps then, the very concept of "direct harm" does not even exist.
Even if it did exist, however, I would argue that there are people who *ought* to be "directly harmed" by speech. Who (among U.S.-friendly nations) can argue, at this point, that Osama bin Laden ought not be harmed for the attacks carried-out on 9/11 (where "harm" can mean anything from reputation damage, to imprisonment, to execution)?
Similarly, why should politicians, or anyone else, be immune to the "harm" of free speech? Speech is just that -- a set of words, communicated on some medium (text, speech, sign language, etc.). It makes no action on its own accord; that requires some non-speech decision process, completely-distinct from the process of communication.
So, then, what justification is there for *any* restriction of free speech? In theory, I would say there is none. In practice, I'm almost inclined to say the same. However, I give exception only to the most-obvious, damaging speech, where even a very small probability of action based on it creates a practically humanity-eliminating risk. So, the only speech I view as legitimate to restrict is communication of *specific*, *ACTIONABLE* information leading to mass-death, as well as fraud, which includes libel/slander (I include fraud because it degrades trust, and without trust, people cannot cooperate, and hence, cannot collectively accomplish anything... which is practically the same outcome as destroying humanity). Of actionable mass-death communication, the classic example IMO is that of communication of detonation codes of nuclear weapons...