h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Freedom of speech - A3478412
Author: Pattern-chaser - U131178

These are my thoughts on a topical and important subject: freedom of speech. I believe they are reasonable, rational, and cover all the bases. But then, I would believe that, wouldn't I? I wrote it, after all!

This entry is here to get your comments and views, so that I can understand how *you* see things, and update the entry accordingly.

Perhaps most important of all: does this entry belong in the (edited) guide, do you think?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Chaser. I would go more for freedome of *tolerant* speech. I don't think we can legislate for courtesy, and in some ways it is a minor matter. However, intolerant speech can deny freedom of speech to others. This wouldn't be fair or make sense, so it's my preferred restriction.

Would you want to extend your topic to include the written word and other forms of expression such as photography and art?

toxx

Although I see no significant difference between 'courteous' and 'tolerant' speech, tolerance is just an attitude, whereas courtesy is a long-established convention (or set of conventions) that allows communication while avoiding conflict.

The application of freedom of speech to photography and art, for example, is a difficult thing. My entry, as it stands, does not address censorship directly. It talks about limiting the freedom of speech for clear and comprehensible reasons. Do you think the entry would gain by being extended in this direction?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I just mentioned censorship as an aside, because it's something I'm particularly interested in. On reflection, I guess it's better dealt with as a separate topic.

I'm concerned that courtesy may, all to easily, become self-censorship. On the other hand, tolerance involves more freedom for oneself and others - assuming it works both ways. That's why I perceive tolerance as the 'gold standard' for freedom of all kinds. Not that I've anything against courtesy, but it shouldn't make us hesitate too much in saying what has to be said.

toxx

AIUI, the whole point of courtesy is to allow us to say what needs to be said, in a way that does not result in conflict. If "what (you/I/one think(s)) needs to be said" is discourteous, then you probably shouldn't be saying it. By this I mean that, while there are things that *should* be said (as you observe ), there is no point in gratuitous insults. They just wind people up, lead toward conflict, and achieve nothing positive (that I can see).

I think we are locked in violent agreement here , although we clearly interpret the terms "courtesy" and "tolerance" a little differently from one another. Vive la difference, and all that!

Yes, censorship is an interesting (but demanding) topic, but I agree with you that it should be treated separately, not lumped in with freedom of speech.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well, that's because we're both being courteous, innit! This is undoubtedly congenial, but I wish I could convince you that even courteous intolerance can give rise to very nasty consequences indeed when the rabble catch on to the disagreement. I don't think Bin Laden has actually been accused of discourtesy!

toxx

OK, example please, to illustrate your point?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I'm not much good at history, but I guess the idea of the Spanish Inquisition was to save people's souls. Most kind and courteous, but with intolerance added you got torture. Other religious programmes of 'conversion by the sword' might be cited. The chivalrously undertaken crusades?

toxx

Do you really think that the behaviour of the Inquisition and the crusaders was significantly influenced by courtesy? I wonder if its influence is not comparable to the milk in 'all heroin addicts began with milk'? Also, I fail to see how the kindness and the torture fit together!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hey, I'm not saying that anyone was actually *influenced* by courtesy! What I am saying is that discourtesy isn't the problem, but intolerance. Some horrific behaviour can be carried out politely. Look at the administration of the death penalty, or the demeanour of the officer classes in war. All very polite and gentlemanly, but nevertheless lethal.

Ah yes, the Inquisition and kindness. The torture would be to spare the victim the greater, indeed eternal, torture of the fires of hell. Then this has been the ostensible motive for taking over the countries of many civilisations 'for their own good'.

I know we're really talking about speech here, but that does tend to be a precursor of and influence on action. It is possible to be perfectly polite when pointing out someones real or imagined faults. Perhaps we use coded language or euphemisms. Nevertheless, the message gets through. The BNP don't go round swearing at people.
At least, the leaders don't do it in public.

No, it's the intolerance that is poisonous, rather than a bit of blunt speaking. I'm concerned that your view would encourage a soft sell and papering over the cracks, without addressing the underlying problems of verbal influences and even incitement.

toxx

<...discourtesy isn't the problem, but intolerance.>

Agreed, but isn't it the case that courtesy is the tool we use, not to prevent intolerance , but to minimise the chances of it leading to conflict? Further, courtesy, AIUI, governs what we say, not what we do. So it isn't really fair to point out that we can speak courteously, but act brutally. I can see you've already thought of this:



Absolutely true, but the entry concerns freedom of speech, and the limitations on 'free' speech that may or may not be necessary and appropriate.



Yes, that's what courtesy gives us, if we stick to it.



How might that happen, do you think? I'm not sure what you mean by a soft sell, and how this might lead to conflict.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

By a 'soft sell' I mean putting a harmless and courteous spin on what is really a pernicious message. I'm saying that it isn't only the reaction to the actual speech that we need to be concerned about, but how that goes on to influence attitudes and behaviour. For example, we wouldn't want attacks on freedom of speech itself, however polite, that encourage violent action against this freedom. The nebulous right of freedom from verbal insult is a minor matter compared with the right of free speech. Only tolerance of free speech, not politeness, guarantees that right.

You know how it goes. First the polite bit: "We tried being nice, but it didn't work". Then the intolerant bit "so we trashed their premises and threatened the personnel." This applies to religious groups, animal rights protesters and others. Again, tolerance is a higher good than politeness, and this is an area where both are involved. Courteous objections to tolerant free speech are particularly pernicious!

toxx

I would like to put all you said in the legal context. First of all, we have sections of the law of tort that deal with the intolerant verbal behaviour should it cause real damage to someone. Those that suffer from the corrolaries of such behavour have the right to have their dignity restored by a court ruling on a due monetary compensation as well as the refutation of the massage contained in such behavior.
Second, The concept of free speech applies only in countries with the developed legal systems, proper case law and unbiased Juduciary. That is in countries such as Britain,US, and continental Europe.In other contries The concept of the Freedom of Speech is just the recently concocted legal tool, to be used to fit ones intention,and enrich the hand of a Judge. There simply exists no underliying Freedom rooted in the Public Conciosness.
Thirdly, The Concept touches upon the behavior of an Individual within the context of their Citizens rights. It does not apply to extra-legal entities such as the Record of the Midievial history (judging the past by the standards of the present), or Bin Laden. For they are outside the scope of the jurisidiction of any national legal system.And we still do not seem to have developed any supranational law of tort, dealing with slander, defamations etc.
It follows,thus, that any Statute on the Freedom of the Courtous Speech is an unjustified complication of the Civil law , for the case law guidance is sufficiently reasonable and mallable to fit the dynamism of our fast-changing Morals

Agreed. What I was trying to say is that, in effect, we (in those countries that have such a law) already have Freedom of (Courteous) Speech. Perhaps I should make that clearer?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think that freedom of speech is an interesting issue that is much more complex that many people give it credit for, and I think it would be a good topic for an edited guide entry. However, I think that to go into the edited guide it would have to cover some of the philosophical literature on this topic - and in particular John Stuart Mill.

Also, you might be interested in A800425 (shameless self promotion...)

Sorry, I mean A792812....

I enjoyed your entry, Otto. A sound and articulate, if somewhat verbose, analysis. I like the way you bring out the complexities, and your emphasis on tolerance. Your conclusion, which boils down to 'no trolling' is interesting too. I think it's very much a matter of degree. We've all encountered the 'perfect pest' and then there's the grit in the oyster! Let's not throw out the latter with the former.

toxx

I apologise, Otto, and withdraw my entry. I have nothing significant to say that you haven't already said.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"