Freedom of speech
Created | Updated Sep 21, 2005
Freedom of speech
What is it, and do we want or need it?
The simplest interpretation says that everyone who has the power of speech has freedom of speech: we can say whatever we wish to. Unfortunately, although most people might consider what we say reasonable and acceptable, there may be some who disagree so strongly that conflict results. In this case we do not have freedom of speech, as we may be harmed as a result of speaking out.
So freedom of speech isn’t as simple as just speaking your mind. Some protection, perhaps a law, is necessary to defend this freedom. Still keeping things as simple as we can, what happens when we have a law (or equivalent protection) that guarantees freedom of speech?
Where freedom of speech is protected, there will be some people who abuse it. It is easy to insult someone so deeply they feel they have no option but to attack you for what you said. No matter how liberal and forgiving we are, we can each be goaded to the point where any reasonable person would agree that an attack was justified.
So freedom of speech isn’t as simple as enforcing your right to speak your mind without restriction. Whatever it is that protects your freedom to speak must also establish limits on what you can say. Unlimited freedom of speech is not something we want or need.
Perhaps what we need is not ‘freedom of speech’ but ‘freedom of courteous speech’? Courtesy allows us to say things that our audience may not wish to hear, but to say them in such a way that conflict is avoided. In practice, this is what we already have in many countries. In the UK, we are free to speak on most subjects, but we must (for example) steer clear of insulting people on the basis of their skin colour. We call this ‘inciting racial hatred’, and we have a law forbidding it.
At the time of writing, the UK parliament is debating a law that would make the incitement of religious hatred a crime. This would place limits on freedom of speech, just as our racial discrimination law already does. I submit that this will be a good and worthwhile law, if it is correctly implemented, reinforcing as it does the ‘freedom of courteous speech’.
Let us take a deeper look at the use of discourteous speech: our ‘freedom to insult’, if you will! If there is a good reason for having it, then the laws we have which limit freedom of speech are surely wrong.
Assume that you and I disagree on some particular issue, and we both know it. My opinion of your opinion is not a complimentary one, and the same applies in reverse. We know this because we know that we disagree on this issue. If I give you my opinion of your opinion, I am telling you nothing you don’t already know (or couldn’t easily guess), but I am probably saying something which will upset you. And we both know this in advance. Thus it seems that the only purpose of giving you my opinion is to upset or insult you. What other purpose can there be?
Note: asking you (courteously!) to explain your belief(s) is quite different from giving you my opinion of your opinion. The former is an attempt to learn and understand; the latter is an excuse for abuse.
We can be a little more general: the purpose of discourteous speech is often – maybe always? – to upset and insult; to promote conflict. This is what the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ attempts to avoid. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that discourteous speech should not be protected under the ‘freedom of speech’ banner.
Finally, where does ‘freedom of speech’ apply? In the home? In the street (or any similar public place)? In our laws? In internet forums (such as this one) and chat-rooms? I submit that it should apply to all of these.
Do we want or need freedom of speech? Yes, I think so. Should this freedom be limited to courteous speech? Yes, I think so.
Note: this is a personal view of the issues associated with freedom of speech. In line with the BBC’s policy of balance, it must be pointed out that there are other, equally valid, views on this matter. ;-)