No. We've seen very clearly how the courts have interpreted the difference between freedom of speech that crosses the line to hate and that causes harm. Right now, if you print an article in the newspaper that is libellous to me, I can seek justice in the courts because there is a limit to freedom of speech in a free and democratic society.
In fact, I have just come back from Vienna, where the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was defending the right to freedom of speech. But it did add that when freedom of speech crosses into hate or becomes libellous, etc., there are ways in which courts can define this so that it will not cause harm. It was very clear that everyone was concerned that every other method of communication in many western European countries and democracies is clearly defined, but under the digital world it isn't. People were talking about finding a way to look at how we define that kind of extraordinary freedom within the digital world because of its very anonymity.
That was a very interesting discussion; it took a whole half day for people to get around it. We had huge media experts and legal experts there who were talking about freedom of speech in a democratic society and about its absolutism, when it reaches a point where it crosses a particular line.
I would hate to see freedom of speech and freedom of expression in any way curtailed in our society, but I do think that when people commit suicide as a result of it or it spreads into these criminal areas, which you cannot now do using normal means of communication....
We have one area of communication that's brand new and that no one has really defined and sewn down and tacked onto.... Basically, the digital world is working in a free and open environment.