The term ‘free speech’ is in itself deceiving. It does not exist and rightly so. In its purest form, free speech would entitle anyone to say anything regardless of its impact on others, be it individuals or groups. I doubt many people would defend racist or homophobic statements, for example, because people ought to be protected by an undiluted freedom to say what they want. In fact, any society with a robust and independent judicial system cannot, by definition, promote a nihilistic view towards freedom of expression. So ‘free speech’ does not exist. What is plausible, is the protection of the right to express opinion which does not contravene legal frameworks created by democratically elected institutions. That said, the parameters of free speech are forever being tightened, especially in the UK, where recent years have seen the adoption of ‘hate speech’ as a criminal act. It’s a grey area and open to political and ideological exploitation. libel and defamation is a different matter, and a hugely expensive process in terms of legal costs (again in reference to the UK). Libel prosecutions are the domain of the rich and powerful. I could easily defame a local builder of average income safe in the knowledge I would not have to worry about legal action, save a few legal letters threatening court proceedings which would in theory cost a six-figure sum to prosecute. Commit the same indiscretion towards the CEO of a British-based multi-national and it’s likely I would find myself in court… and debt. Libel laws are not about moderating free speech but serve to protect the nation’s wealthy elite. There are a number of defences for defamation where a statement has in all likelihood ‘lowered the reputation of an individual in the minds of right thinking people’, the main one being ‘justification’ ie: the statement was demonstrably true. For example, to publicly refer to a convicted robber as such, is without doubt defamatory - the reputation of that individual will have been harmed - but entirely defendable because it is a true statement. Which brings us to the internet and its perceived anonymity, where individuals feel freer from the constraints of law, a sense of liberation magnified by the complexity of any potential prosecution - which nation’s law do we use, for example, if a Brit defames a German, via a server in the US? And we see the effect of this on forums and, for us, in 3DX too. It’s interesting to observe, over and above the game’s T&Cs, players tend to self-moderate, and over time members whose behaviour is seen to be excessive are often brought into line (ie: they leave) via peer pressure. You see, when push comes to shove, none of us seem to want speech entirely free from constraint. It’s all about where you draw the line…
