When is suppressing speech justified?

The only decent justification for suppression of speech that I can think of is self defense (or similar) e.g. speech that would reveal the location of a protected witness should be suppressed.

I guess there is also preventing fraud or public pornography which might be considered suppressing speech but that’s not what I’m aiming to discuss.

What I am wanting to discuss is that in New Zealand the courts and judges regularly suppress speech and make it a punishable offense to discuss cases. This seems grossly unjust.

For the most part, it is unjust for the courts or judges to suppress speech. (I can think of some examples of unjust suppression but I’m not free to share them.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *