Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Two views on freedom of speech
Following on from the news here that two organisations are to be banned, we have a view here from Drinking From Home and a differing view here from a Samizdata contributor.
Now I have no sympathy with those who carry out terrorist attacks, but I don't see what is to be gained by banning them from speaking, even from "gloryfying terrorism". If free speech is to be a pillar of democracy, then it has to include speech we don't like, speech we find objectionable, speech that includes hate speech. The reason is that all these things are subjective and speech that I would find objectionable, another person might not and vice versa; if we start banning speech we don't like, we can hardly complain when people go haywire over a few cartoons.
Secondly by banning forms of speech it opens us to the charge of hypocrisy; we cannot say to oppresive regimes: "look, your way is wrong, people should be free to say what they want." for then they'll reply: "ah, but you would not allow our polices to be spoken, and if they were spoken, people would vote for them".
What in my view should be punished is incitement; but drawing the line can cause a problem. In recent demonstrations we saw placards reading "Behead those who insult Islam", and these were criticised and in the context of the demonstrations I think they could have rightly been seen as incitement. On the other side of the line if a demonstrator carried a placard reading: "All muderers should hang" this would probably not be incitement. One seems to be calling for a change in the law and judicial process to ensure a certain punishement for a criminal offence, the other seems to be encouraging people to extra-judicial action in response to something, which for me goes beyond acceptable free speech.
If the placard had read: "Blasphemers should be beheaded"; then that is merely someone expressing an opinion as to what they think the law should be. I would not agree with that opinion and I would find it extreme, but someone who believes it, is entitled to express it. If you allow people to peddle extremist views then they expose themselves for the crackpots they are. If you don't then they try to pass themselves off as something else and they might gain support by deception.
An advantage of freedom of speech is that encourages everyone to sign up to the democratic system. The honest extremist believes in their cause and as the cause makes sense to them they'll assume it will be attractive to others, allow them to express their views and they'll burn out for lack of fuel. It's easy to have sympathy with someone who is not allowed to express their view, and the question of: "What makes this view so dangerous to a democratic society that it has to ban it?" becomes difficult to answer. Finally of course the extremeist who is publically peddling their views is in sight for all to see and this on it's own makes people more alert to the danger, which is a greater protection than the state can provide.
I believe in democracy, but it has to be able to stand on its own without the props of totalitarianism.
In this context, I side with the Libertarians.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Now I have no sympathy with those who carry out terrorist attacks, but I don't see what is to be gained by banning them from speaking, even from "gloryfying terrorism". If free speech is to be a pillar of democracy, then it has to include speech we don't like, speech we find objectionable, speech that includes hate speech. The reason is that all these things are subjective and speech that I would find objectionable, another person might not and vice versa; if we start banning speech we don't like, we can hardly complain when people go haywire over a few cartoons.
Secondly by banning forms of speech it opens us to the charge of hypocrisy; we cannot say to oppresive regimes: "look, your way is wrong, people should be free to say what they want." for then they'll reply: "ah, but you would not allow our polices to be spoken, and if they were spoken, people would vote for them".
What in my view should be punished is incitement; but drawing the line can cause a problem. In recent demonstrations we saw placards reading "Behead those who insult Islam", and these were criticised and in the context of the demonstrations I think they could have rightly been seen as incitement. On the other side of the line if a demonstrator carried a placard reading: "All muderers should hang" this would probably not be incitement. One seems to be calling for a change in the law and judicial process to ensure a certain punishement for a criminal offence, the other seems to be encouraging people to extra-judicial action in response to something, which for me goes beyond acceptable free speech.
If the placard had read: "Blasphemers should be beheaded"; then that is merely someone expressing an opinion as to what they think the law should be. I would not agree with that opinion and I would find it extreme, but someone who believes it, is entitled to express it. If you allow people to peddle extremist views then they expose themselves for the crackpots they are. If you don't then they try to pass themselves off as something else and they might gain support by deception.
An advantage of freedom of speech is that encourages everyone to sign up to the democratic system. The honest extremist believes in their cause and as the cause makes sense to them they'll assume it will be attractive to others, allow them to express their views and they'll burn out for lack of fuel. It's easy to have sympathy with someone who is not allowed to express their view, and the question of: "What makes this view so dangerous to a democratic society that it has to ban it?" becomes difficult to answer. Finally of course the extremeist who is publically peddling their views is in sight for all to see and this on it's own makes people more alert to the danger, which is a greater protection than the state can provide.
I believe in democracy, but it has to be able to stand on its own without the props of totalitarianism.
In this context, I side with the Libertarians.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
