Calling this case an attack on free speech is ridiculous. The media defendants weren’t charged with expressing political opinions; they were charged with direct incitement to kill and broadcasting orders to the interahamwe. Criminal conspiracy is criminal conspiracy even if it’s carried out over the radio.

I’m not quite sure it’s so easy to determine where conspiracy starts and free speech stops, but I’m ill-inclined to show much sympathy for these defendants if the facts are as described. Putting out a credible call to “kill’em all” is arguably free speech, although I’m not likely to raise a finger to defend the principle in such a case. Certainly free speech extends beyond merely expressing opinions. Political mobilisation, for example, involves using media to commit acts that would be conspiracy by any definition, if they were illegal. If a radio station organises listeners to interfere with - for example - George Bush’s motorcade through London, I’d say that there is a case for free speech there, although it’s not a clear cut one.

Passing out names and addresses of future victims, however, qualifes as criminal by any meaningful definition of the word. A lifetime of detention sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Once again, the ugly head of rights-talk pops up again. You could say that for the Tutsis, rights were a bit more that “disutile.”

Putting out a credible call to “kill’em all” is arguably free speech

Under American law, this would not be free speech if said under circumstances where there is a clear and present danger that the audience will actually kill them all. Incitement to riot isn’t protected speech, and neither is criminal solicitation (asking another to commit a crime with the intent that the crime actually be carried out). Most European law codes with which I’m familiar provide less protection to incitement than American law, so I can’t imagine that this would be protected speech in any Western legal system.