@Traveller: What is true and what is false is a moral question, not a question which the law should answer or prescribe to limit the freedom of speech.

Even when truth is a factual issue, there should still be room for stating the opposite, otherwise no debate is possible.

So Luc the ultimate arbiter of the truth is the judicial system which is an extension, an arm of the tyranny of the democratic majority? 

I suspect Traveller and MPresley have a similiar reaction to yours to the luney tales of the moon landing deniers, I doubt they're frantically ringing up 9/11 to report a truth violation. ( If they did, would that make them 9/11 truthers?)

I think MPresley identified the real source of the problem, i.e. whether liberal democracy and its associated doctrine of freedom of the press is based on the concept of natural rights or the classical concept of natural law. Having been immersed in the primary sources for a number of years, I know there is a lot more ambiguity in the resolving that issue than natural righters would acknowledge. In fact, my own position is that the classical concept of natural law was in the ascent among the more enlightened individuals of the Age. My trump card in the debate would simply be the Declaration of Independence, I don't know  how the 'righters' toss out the Creator, though we all know they have never tired of trying.

@traveller @mpresley: Obviously both of you would put people who deny the moon landings in jail (or in a psychiatric hospital), since what they say is obviously untrue.  I myself find their writings amusing and a form of art.

Furthermore, who will determine what is truthful and what is not?  In Western Europe, laws have been put in place that institute an official truth, e.g. regarding the holocaust, regarding the non-existence of races, or even the "equality" of all religions.  In this mindset, the truth is what the democratic majority has decided to be the truth.  

So both of you really want to limit free speech to what has been approved as "the truth"?

I would say that the limits of free speech are libel and slander, and that it is up to the person that has been slandered to prove before a court that the slander was untrue and has caused him damage.

Only a couple of days ago I argued on a French blog that the free speech discussion was a truth discussion and that the only limit to free speech was the fact that the speech had to be truthful. Other limits to free speech would be limits on truth which obviously "nobody" would want, except the "powers that be".

First, I thank you for the kind words. However, my thinking is not original; if it was it would probably not be worth very much. Fortunately we have the foundation of history to build upon, and the work of truly profound thinkers to rely upon.

Whenever these types of existential arguments are grounded in abstract ideas such as "the individual's right to free speech” the argument will quickly become mucked up, bogged down within the mire of a tension between the isolated citizen (or in this case, maybe even a non-citizen) and the social order. Any appeal to an abstract “equal right” necessarily leads to a relativism that works against the nation as an organic whole. It presupposes that all views are equal and hence must be protected under the guise of upholding equality of right.

There is an inherent contradiction within a liberal order grounded upon individual right that leads to the bizarre situation wherein the order itself will become corrupt to the extent it freely admits those that are antagonistic toward the order. A liberal-minded society can only survive if everyone is liberally like-minded. Obviously this is not the case in this case. So, in the name of liberal equality, those who oppose their dispossession, and the dissolution of their traditional order, must be suppressed as they are considered intolerant.  On the other hand, those whose views and behavior are incommensurate to the tradition are supported.

Frank,

The Danes have lost their voice. The people have lost their ability to influence the politicians. They are much further down the road to totalitarianism than we are and we should help them. But we are not. This is a matter for all freedom loving people in the world to attend to not just those who are directly affected.

Diana West begins her article by lamenting that Denmark's (self-directed) descent into dhimmitude has not met with resistance from institutions in the United States.  What the bloody hell do institutions in the United States have to do with some idiotic Danish laws that permit a member of parliament to be prosecuted for stating the truth?  Have the Europeans officially become mentally retarded five-year-olds who can't be held responsible for their own lunacy?  The problems in Denmark should be met with resistance from DANISH institutions.  That's the story here.  Denmark is a member of the EU.  Those foolish Danish laws should be met with resistance from EUROPEAN institutions.  This attitude that the Americans have responsibility for everything in Europe has got to be resisted at every turn.  If, in fact, American institutions demonstrated their opposition to the Danish actions, the Europeans would simply decry American meddling, insensitivity, provincialism, ignorance, etc. etc. etc.  Good God, the first step toward curbing European stupidity is to hold Europeans responsible for their actions, the way mentally sound adults should be held responsible.

Not just a foreign presence but a domestic betrayal that reaches right into the sanctity of the home and family.

Thank you Mpresley for all your recent comments I have found them very insightful and stimulating.

This is a very troubling set of events, but not unexpected.  However, I am always unenthused when the argument turns on "free speech," an abstract right that often implies a relativism not intended.  Clearly the issue is not simply a matter of one's ability to say this or that without fear of reprisal.  One could, for instance, have "free speech" but still lose one's country.

It is better, I think, to frame the argument not in the abstract-a defense of speech-but rather as a defense of truth.  Also, a defense of a people's ability to defend themselves in a concrete manner against dispossesion at the hands of a foreign presence.  It is not a subtle distinction.