"Two rappers have been jailed for using an internet song to try to scare off witnesses to the murder of a 24-year-old man in Ealing, west London."....

"Eight people, including McLean and Simon, were arrested following Mr Johnson's shooting but were not prosecuted."....

the offending words were
'I can't wait for the snitch to drop, I still show up at his wake just to see him off'.

The song and accompanying video was posted to facebook, you tube profiles. Source BBC

My question is what does this say about freedom of speech?
Surely this is an exception. However, where do you draw the line?

When somebody threatens a witness to a crime they should receive the appropriate punishment.
The fact that they communicated the threat in an unconventional manner is of no consequence.
This doesn't say anything about freedom of speech except that you're not free to intimidate or threaten witnesses, which we already knew.
The line should be drawn at threats to harm.
Increasingly, however, the line is being drawn at the point where someone claims that they feel offended.
Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, has indicated that he thinks that the line should be drawn at "false rumours".

HermanYutic,
Thank you for your comment.
Too true I tend to agree with you.
In previous discussions the argument is, we should be entitled to say anything we want, without censorship.
In this case the motive was clear, however, what is never clear is where is the line?
What if the song had just been released on the internet, played at a local dance rather than specific sites? Wouldn't it have had the same threat to the intended?

The only definition I have seen that works is the one used in the USA which requires the speech to be either a "clear and present danger" or a "imminent lawless action". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger So the speech must first urge a something lawless (which the song in question obviously does) and that action must clearly be about to be imminent (which it isn't in the case of the song). Yelling "fire" in a theatre meets the definition.

Many have a problem with the "imminent" requirement, but it has to be there. If is wasn't, criticising the existing law - perhaps our current one banning certain Simpson cartoons, is recommending lawlessness. Thus suggesting that law be ignored as an act of civil disobedience could put you in jail.

Any other definition tends to get warped very quickly into something that allows - well the banning of Simpson's cartoons because they supposedly create a clear danger to kids in the future. It is only when you insist that reading the Simpson cartoon must be capable of immediately sending something into paedophilic frenzy that the asserted "clear danger" gets revealed for what it is.

“Freedom of speech” is not “freedom to incite”

Likewise, actions are not words.

My view is people who have been refused entry to Australia, for reason of their previous use of a freedom to profess values which are contrary to Australian mainstream values, such as David Irvine, the holocaust denier, should never have been banned form entering Australia because whilst his view was offensive to many, me included, he was entitled to profess such views.

Thus simply expressing a view or opinion, which does not include a threat, should never represent a deniable freedom.

If you have someone expressing a view promoting or inciting others to criminal or violent acts, then such speech is essentially inflammatory, likely to promote acts of violence and should be illegal.

It should never be the words or the language used to express a view which should be illegal: it should be only the actions promoted and endorsed by the speaker which should be subject to legal sanction.

To the punitive consequence – well the incitement should be deemed as serious as what is being incited, thus to incite people to murder should carry a similar punishment as murder, to incite others to burn down houses should be carry similar punishment as arson.

Dear Examinator,

Democratic societies usually put various
limitations on what people may say. There's
laws governing libel and slander. There's
laws that prohibit people urging violence
and so on. Therefore a person's freedom of
speech is limited by the rights of others.
However drawing a line between
dangerous and harmless speech can at times
be extremely difficult. What some people
find offensive - may not be unlawful.
Cases that are brought to court however - usually
have enough evidence to back them up.