The conservative US organisation the Homeland Institute recently placed a billboard on the streets of Chicago. The sign read 'I still believe in global warming. Do you?' Above it they had placed an image of the 'Unabomber', Ted Kaczynski. A representative of the Homeland Institute said the intention of the advertisement was to suggest that anyone who still believed in global warming was, in his words, 'more than a little nutty'.
The billboard elicited a negative response from some people who had previously been supporters of the Institute, and has since been removed. But still, the billboard raises important issues of freedom of speech.
The billboard did not break any law. It was removed, not because it was found to be illegal, but because even erstwhile supporters thought it had 'gone too far'. The question therefore arises: even though the Homeland Institute was free by law to post the billboard, ought people be free by law to post such a billboard?
Many people — even those who would describe themselves as global warming skeptics — felt the billboard was inappropriate. But precisely what was wrong with it?
It did not assert anything that was factually in error. Kaczynski does believe in global warming. It does not incite anyone to violence. It does not vilify any ethnic, cultural or sexual minority. It might be claimed to libel a group — those who believe in climate change — by suggesting they are 'nuts'. But it was not removed for this reason.
It was removed because of the adverse reaction it received, even from other skeptics. Some sponsors of the Homeland Institute withdrew their support. The billboards were condemned as 'dumb', in 'incredibly bad taste' and 'offensive'. Obviously, the billboards did not constitute a high quality contribution to public debate.
But — assuming they were not actually against the law because libelous — ought they have been banned? Ought people be prohibited by law from making contributions to public speech that are rude, offensive, in bad taste or show astoundingly bad judgment? There are at least two sides to this question.
It might be argued that words can cause suffering. We have no hesitation in making it illegal for one person to, for example, cause suffering to another by clunking them over the