What is the attitude of the author to laws against abusive speech aimed at groups?
Free speech is sometimes defended as if it were an all-or-nothing principle: either every opinion may be expressed, or the state decides which opinions are acceptable. This is a false choice. Every legal system already restricts speech that incites violence, defames individuals or discloses secrets, and none has collapsed into tyranny as a result. The real question is where the lines are drawn and who draws them. A restriction on abusive speech aimed at a group may be justified if it prevents real harm to that group's members. But the justification must be shown, not assumed. The danger of such laws is that they tend to be applied most readily against dissent that officials find irritating. A good test is whether the law would still seem sensible if it were administered by one's political opponents.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. Cautiously open to them, provided a real harm is demonstrated
- Step 1: The author writes 'may be justified if it prevents real harm' but 'the justification must be shown, not assumed'.
- Step 2: That is conditional acceptance.
Answer
Cautiously open to them, provided a real harm is demonstrated.
Why not the others: The author is neither wholly opposed nor enthusiastic about broad official discretion, does not ignore effectiveness and does not claim that such laws have never prevented harm.
Practise more Free expression.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.