Free Speech ''is fine until the invective is against you''

[Tez3]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...til-the-invective-is-against-you-1805247.html

Arguments about free speech can get heated but I think this is a thought provoking opinion from a columnist in the UK's Independent newspaper.

 

[Archangel M]

Nice. But I note the lack of a "solution". Who decides what is "too far" and what will the "punishment" be? It's easy to say "something should be done" but much more difficult to figure out what that something is...and who gets to call the shots.

Already we seem to be in a state where one off-color joke can ruin you, or where one race is allowed to use a word but if another uses it,it causes an uproar.

 

[Tez3]

I don't know either what the solution is or even if there is one. I suppose in many ways things are better in that its understood by most now that certain words are insulting and upsetting to others and that racist rants shouldn't be tolerated. I suspect that as often happens when the people who make the laws sit down to frame a law against something they try to cover too many eventualities and end up with draconian measures. As they say. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Archangel M]

I think we run into BIG trouble when the standard starts to become one of "offending someone" vs. a violation of law. People will find offense in ANYTHING and sometimes even nothing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I suppose in many ways things are better in that its understood by most now that certain words are insulting and upsetting to others and that racist rants shouldn't be tolerated.

Racist rants, in my opinion, must be tolerated. As must all other forms of hate speech. Tolerating such speech achieves two things, both important.

The first is that it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that freedom of speech is alive and real. Freedoms are defined by their boundaries, not by the middle.

The second is that it exposes such speech to the light of day, to light and logic and counterattack. The sun is the world's best antiseptic. To drive such speech underground (and let us be clear, one cannot stop people thinking and saying what they will in private) is to court hidden agendas, conspiracies, festering wounds, and the illusion that all is well.

Whilst there are underground conspiracies and racist groups and other such monstrosities in US society (one presumes in the UK as well), many of them feel comfortable speaking their minds in public. And that is well. They are known and identified. Their words are easily confronted with logic, openness defeats the ugliness of reasonless hatred.

And frankly, there is nothing people who hate like better than to be oppressed. It gives them a reason to believe as they do (as they see it). They have an enemy who is actually after them, as opposed to imagining such things. Some few are attracted to such a lifestyle. Not the kind of thing one wants to make seem justified in the least.

Let the KKK march. Let the neo-Nazi's rally. Ignore them. Laugh at them. Counter-demonstrate. But make it clear that though they are plainly free to speak their minds, their minds are full of garbage; and the world can clearly see it.

 

[Xinglu]

I feel that the only times a person should not be protected by "free speech" is if it is libelous, slanderous, or a threat to harm/kill someone.

The first two should not be up to the state to prosecute, it should be up to the individual who is the victim of either. In the latter case I feel that does fall under the prevue of government to prosecute.

Everything else, should be tolerated (legally) as it doesn't infringe on anyone's liberties. They can be ignored, debated, protested, etc.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Freedoms are defined by their boundaries, not by the middle.

Suitable for framing.

Bill, this is a standard that I often fall short on. Thanks for the reminder. Splendid post.