ARE THERE LIMITS TO FREE SPEECH?

"Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

- Noam Chomsky

To legislate against "hate speech" is not just a violation against the principles of free speech, it is a full step beyond legislating against thought crime. To criminalise my thoughts or opinions would be egregious enough, but hate speech legislation actually skips that step and jumps straight to punishing me for the thoughts of others.

What I say doesn't actually have to be hateful, violent, or discriminatory, it just has to be interpreted as such by others. Worse still, in Australia, the act of expression in question needs to merely upset the intellectually low hanging fruit by being "offensive".

But at what point do words go from being merely unpleasant to hateful? And what exactly constitutes "inciting violence"?

Is it enough for me to merely insinuate that I wouldn't be particularly upset if harm were to come your way, or do I have to give someone specific instructions on how to cause you harm? At what point does a statement stop being mere words passing my lips and become the act of violence which inflicted injury upon you? Put simply, when do words become actions?

Three options:

1. In my head
2. In the head of the third party, or
3. They don't

If it's #1 then we're legislating thought crime. If it's #2, then surely I cannot be reasonably held accountable for the independent decisions of another person. And if it's #3, then we are attempting to outlaw the supernatural, criminalising that which does not exist.