ABSTRACT
This chapter looks at some conceptual arguments for security and liberty before considering specific and pragmatic arguments for the recalibration of liberty in favour of enhanced security and the adequacy of constitutional arrangements for the oversight of security agencies. In examining a specific act of indirectly inciteful speech, Eric Heinze concludes that what prompts restriction is the ‘ugliness’ of the expression and its ‘disfiguring’ effect on society. Other writers have pointed to oblique harms caused to the social order and the rule of law by the failure to outlaw indirectly inciteful speech in the terrorism context. Lord Carlile was apparently untroubled by the extremely broad definition of ‘terrorism’ in UK law, which extends to any threats of ‘action’ against totalitarian, rights-violating regimes. The foregoing discussion has sought to isolate some different strands from arguments for speech restrictions in counter terrorism policy.
