Having our say
The best response to confronting speech is more speech, not less, according to philosopher John Stuart Mill. Seldom has that advice been more pertinent. The Government’s proposal to strengthen hate-speech laws has quickly degenerated into cacophonic confusion, so it’s important New Zealanders clarify exactly what we seek to be protected from. The answer used to be violence, not speech itself. Now the proposal is to reduce the prosecution threshold from violence to hatred, tipping its ambit into a dangerously subjective zone. Under existing law, only speech that leads to, or is clearly intended to lead to, violence is unlawful. The proposal to move these provisions from the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act and toughen the penalties is uncontroversial. It’s the proposed wider net to catch speech that “intentionally incites/stirs up,…