Last month or so, a particular gentleman made some not-at-all friendly remarks about homosexuals. The answer from the homosexual community was attempting to prosecute him both locally, and through a European Court. Now I don't know what this person said, or claimed, and I'm sure it was quite mean and liable to make people cross - but in my opinion he should have the right to say whatever he wants.
When I talk about free speech in this context, I mean the expression of opinions. I'm not attempting to talk about any other expressions. Threats aren't expression of opinions, neither is swearing. These are outside the context. But, back to the point.
Generally free speech has a limitation on it, namely it can't offend social norms and it can't attempt to remove other people's other human rights. I believe these are wrong for these 4 reasons:
I) Social Norms and likely to change. People who were 'censored' for saying something different one year, might be norm in the next. Around 2500 years ago, a particular person was poisoned for "Corrupting the Youth of Athens" by spreading his opinions. Around 1975 years ago, another particular person who was spreading teachings about loving each other was nailed to a cross for offending social norms. 375 years or so ago, someone made the audacious claim that the earth moved around the sun and almost got himself burnt at the stake.
What the above examples aim to illustrate is certain people who were killed for their beliefs turned out to be 'right' or have effected social norms to the point that they're celebrated. So why bother putting such a limitation?
II) If the spreading of the opinion is 'bad', then by extension you'd assume that holding the opinion would be 'bad' too. But should there be such control over people's opinions? Can't they be free to believe whatever they want? If I want to believe that people who's names start with Z are idiots, then what right does anyone have to intrude in my brain?
III) We need different opinions to reinforce and adapt our own. Discussion is an important part of noting whether are opinions have holes in them, or whether they can stand up to cross-examination. If everyone needs to hold an opinion which is 'community friendly', then who's going to argue against it? Who's going to point out that we're doing something wrong?
IV) It can be used to oppress people. Been done years upon years. You leave a small clause, a fall-guy who gets punished for speaking out of line for something properly offensive, and bit by bit the rights get worn away. Yes its a slippery slope argument, but its happened time after time.
So in my opinion, all speech should be protected, no matter how offensive, different or weird it may be. People should have the right to believe anything they want, spread this opinion and have it cross-examined and modified.
LLAMA
Disagree, there should be limitations against freedom of speech. If somebody claims without any proof that you molest llamas and people think its true, then you have a right to sue the person who made the claim for libel. If you win, then people officially know that they were saying a load of rubbish.
ReplyDeleteOther reasons: Incitement of hatred and violence, soliciting for sex (including children), no age restriction, false accusations, distrubiting obviously false information (eg. Fox-news etc) and etc.
@Humphrey:
ReplyDeleteAs said earlier, I'm only talking about the expression of OPINIONS. I realise its a bit of a blurry word in itself. Spreading lies isn't an opinion, its spreading lies. Claiming I'm molesting llamas isn't much of an opinion, since there's a clear fact which can be found out. Claiming that all people who love llamas should be shot - is all fine - because its your opinion on a matter which has no correct answer, or one which can't be tested.
Incitement of hate and violence is a bit iffy. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "In my opinion we should shoot all people who have blogs", provided its not an order. Of course if someone does commit a crime of that sort, then its not your fault. Its that person's fault. To explain it better - if in your opinion some people should die, that's fine. If other people share that opinion, that's fine. If you try to do it - that's wrong, that's illegal. But sharing the opinion is not. I'm hope I'm making myself clear.
Soliciting for sex, false accusations and lying are again, not the spreading of one's opinion and are therefore outside the scope.
Free speech isn't just a 'freedom', but also a responsibility. You can say whatever you want, but you also have to be prepared to take responsibility for any consequences it may bring about.
ReplyDelete@Jaime: Ah, but my argument is that there should be no LEGAL responsibilities. If people who disagree with him treat him differently, or have frequent discussions with him, that's great. I'm saying it shouldn't involve prosecution.
ReplyDeleteIf you say something against your government, and you 'disappear', would it be morally acceptable because you're taking responsibility for your words? Where do you put the limit? My argument is that there shouldn't be one.