When do we restrict "free" speech?

I heard a thoughtful discussion on The Current this morning with a Norwegian newspaper editor about whether the trial of Anders Behring Breivik should be closed or open. The recent proceedings, committing him for trial, are, said the editor, not uncommonly closed and so the judge's decision to close these proceedings was not really an issue. Quite different for the trial itself, he said, which would normally be open and he expects they will be.

We know that Breivik wants to use the trial to state his views about Islam and immigration. We know that he massacred young people and others so that he would have an audience for his views (and possibly because he wanted to eliminate people who might be responsible for continuing Norway's liberal policies on these issues). He himself said in his manifesto (or at least in portions quoted on one English language site: he was "excuting cultural Marxists/multicultural traitors". For some people, then, allowing him to express his views is simply to give him what he wants, to reinforce his horrendous actions. For the editor, and others, the only way to counter his views is to have an open conversation about them.

I do not believe that free speech trumps all, although I do think it is a vital aspect of our society and one of the ways in which we define ourselves and it seems that Norwegians share this view. I think this is consistent with how we have structured our Charter and with a society that seeks to reflect difference, equality, openness and acceptance, even while recognizing that some views need to be restrained.

How does an open trial fit into this? (By open, I simply mean not closed; I do not mean televised.) There is, of course, the principle of open trials, itself a mark of a judicial system accountable to the public for how it tries them. We do not readily make court proceedings secret. This is an accused who must be one of the most despised people in Norway. It is all the more important that his trial be open to critique.

He will defend his actions on the basis of his anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant views, as necessary to put Norway on the right path. It will be a fundamental aspect of his trial. Do we think that his expression of these views as justified by killing 76 people will convince those who do not already share his views, as do some people in Norway and elsewhere? Will the horror and vilification that have been directed at him convince others to share that reputation? His actions have been well publicized; copycats are already aware of them. His views are broadly known, his manifesto posted on Facebook.

Do we think that allowing him to express these views is to legitimate them? I recall when Ernst Zundel was on trial for spreading false news, thereby requiring survivors to testify about their experiences. There were those who would not have put him on trial because it gave him a platform. Whatever the merits of that position - or of the law, found to be unconstitutional - the same cannot be said of murder, unless I suppose the killer is found to be insane.

The argument of exposing these views and having them rejected, assuming that they are, is a strong one, although not convincing to those who share them I am sure. It is true that extreme views, couched in soft and reasonable tones, might influence others. They cannot be left unchallenged on the assumption that most people do not share them. Therefore, the notion of free speech requires that those who disagree will also speak out. The news editor from Norway made this point: for him, being able to publish the views as the accused speaks them in court, also provides an opportunity to counter them. The press, he said, cannot be a "mike" for this man, cannot merely repeat what he says. A society that believes in freedom of speech also has an obligation to use it to defend other values and to reinforce them.