# Freedom of Speech no matter what?



## emma42

In terms of religious people having the right to speak in public debates, I intend to open a new thread entitled, "Freedom of Speech no matter what".  This is not because I do not think religious people have the right to freedom of speech per se.  They do.  I would like to discuss the concept of freedom of speech versus incitement to hatred etc.  I am thinking more of far right political parties such as the British National Party in Britain.


----------



## emma42

I wonder what forer@s think of the right to freedom of speech, no matter what is being said. In many democracies the concept of freedom of speech is held up for all to admire, but the reality is that many "speech freedoms" are withheld. For example, in England, it is illegal to "incite racial hatred" and, then, obviously, there are the libel and slander statutes.

I am thinking particularly of far right political organisations such as the British National Party, which some consider should not have the right to freedom of speech, particularly in public meetings, because the party is considered anti-democratic per se and should therefore be denied a right to which they would (in some people's opinion) deny others. This is based on the Nazi model.

Others consider that the BNP should be able to exercise freedom of speech, because it is an integral part of democracy and, also, because they think that listeners will be so turned off by what they hear that the BNPs cause will not be furthered.

What do forer@s think about these matters?


----------



## Sallyb36

I think that everyone should be able to say what they want (complete freedom of speech), and everyone else can make their own minds up about whether they agree with it or not.
If i hear someone inciting racial hatred I thoroughly dislike them instantly.


----------



## emma42

What if an open-air meeting of holocaust revisionists is being held in a strong Jewish area, with probably people present who either survived the holocaust or who lost whole families?


----------



## Sallyb36

Well, it wouldn't be pleasant....


----------



## emma42

Granted. But you would still accept it? What if you were Jewish?

I don't mean to "Spanish Inquisition" you, sally!  It is a really difficult question.


----------



## cuchuflete

It's a good question.  There is a battle going on now, with national press coverage, for control of the board of trustees of the college I attended.   The conservative (or so some of them call themselves) insurgents are against what they perceive as an excess of political correctness on the part of the university administration.

They would like to see difficult issues discussed, including ideas that may be offensive to some constituencies.  The administration, like that of most US institutions of "higher learning", is fairly PC, and preaches nice ideas like tolerance, mutual respect.  Unfortunately, honest discussions of most any topic will, inevitably, include ideas that are offensive to someone or other.

I believe that, as a matter of both intellectual honesty and personal integrity, it is better to allow free expression of all viewpoints, than to pretend that some highly contentious viewpoints don't exist.  I would only draw the line at comments that are made not to express a sincerely held viewpoint, but rather to insult and wound.  

As emma42 has written, "It is a really difficult question."
The president of Harvard University was recently driven out of office for asking a question.  The politikly kerrect faculty, while spouting off about freedom of ideas, freedom of speech, and all of that, could not stomach a question to which they didn't have an answer!


----------



## emma42

I tend to agree.  The main argument against, though, seems to be that we cannot allow anti-democratic speeches advocating anti-democracy, in a democracy.  It's a rather weak argument, in many ways, but has some merit, possibly.


----------



## french4beth

emma42 said:
			
		

> What if an open-air meeting of holocaust revisionists is being held in a strong Jewish area, with probably people present who either survived the holocaust or who lost whole families?


This was exactly the case in Skokie, Illinois, back in 1977, home of many Holocaust survivors - the American Civil Liberties Union defended the right of a Nazi offshoot to hold a rally - the attendees were not allowed to wear swastikas, however... Unfortunately, if everyone has the right to free speech (at least pre-9/11 and before the Homeland Security Act, here in the US), then that also includes the lunatic fringe.

The ACLU is an incredible organization, by the way (http://www.aclu.org/)


> The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


----------



## jimreilly

Of course there are many controversial cases. The ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union, a U.S.  organization defending, among other things, freedom of speech) is frequently in the position of defending the right of freedom of speech  and assembly of unpopular groups, including groups with which most ACLU members would disagree, such as the Klu Klux Klan. 

One famous historical standard is that you don't have the right "to cry fire in a crowded theater" unless there is a fire. But who's to decide how crowded the theater has to be to be "crowded", and what constitutes "crying fire". Nothing is simple.

As a gay person (who also has a lesbian sister) I think people who want to restrict my and her rights have the right to speak and promote their bigotries. And they do just that. Sometimes their speech even incites violence--is it shouting fire in a crowded theater? In my heart, of course, I wish they would shut up! But the same freedom of speech traditions which protect their rights also protect mine, give me the right to call the actions of bigots "bigotry", and have helped made possible a great shift in attitudes toward gay and lesbian people in the long run.


----------



## DDT

emma42 said:
			
		

> I tend to agree.  The main argument against, though, seems to be that we cannot allow anti-democratic speeches advocating anti-democracy, in a democracy.  It's a rather weak argument, in many ways, but has some merit, possibly.


mmmh...it is a fact that the boarder can be subtle sometimes...what I consider freedom, if I may widen the topic for a while, is everything (deeds, writings, etc) which doesn't affect  negatively anyone: so much room for subjectivity, I know  
Apart from that I consider there are certain "areas" where the defense of freedom of speech risks to be more than a weak argument, an empty point if I may say so. The BNP example makes me think of the fact that every form of expression based on a model which has been condemned by history should ALWAYS be particularly kept under surveillance and limited when trespassing a certain level...which is always subjective to identify...
Sometimes written laws can help. For instance the Italian constitution condemns any form of apology of Fascism (yet there have been some and no trial has followed).
In the past such reflections like the previous ones (and some other ones) have already led me to think that we cannot but hope that someday we will learn to respect everyone's peculiarity/difference/uniqueness. Still a long way to go, I'm afraid

DDT


----------



## Sallyb36

Emma i would question their sanity but defend their right to speak freely. I know that it's better not to say certain things in certain circumstances, but still believe that we should all be able to say what we want to where and when we want to.  it should not be against the law to speak.


----------



## cuchuflete

To bring this back to the discomfort zone....

Really free expression about sensitive issues will make some people uncomfortable.  Some will feel offended.  Thats the price of free speech.  A lot--not all--of the politically correct
trend is about not allowing speech that causes such discomfort.  I call that hypocrisy and dishonesty.

Here's a blatant example:
In many countries, a disproportionate number of convicts come from minority and immigrant groups.  That's fact.
Of course there are reasons and explanations.  If, for example, immigrants are 5% of the population of country "X", and also account for 20% of the prison population, the PC advocates would try to suppress such statements, while the lunatic right would try to use the numbers to paint a dishonest and false picture of the nature of the immigrant population.
Both are dishonest.


----------



## french4beth

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> To bring this back to the discomfort zone.... *you had to go there, didn't you?  *
> 
> Really free expression about sensitive issues will make some people uncomfortable. Some will feel offended. Thats the price of free speech. A lot--not all--of the politically correct trend is about not allowing speech that causes such discomfort. I call that hypocrisy and dishonesty.  *I agree, cuchu!*
> 
> Here's a blatant example:
> In many countries, a disproportionate number of convicts come from minority and immigrant groups. That's fact. Of course there are reasons and explanations. If, for example, immigrants are 5% of the population of country "X", and also account for 20% of the prison population, the PC advocates would try to suppress such statements, while the lunatic right would try to use the numbers to paint a dishonest and false picture of the nature of the immigrant population. Both are dishonest.


In addition, in this country, low-minded individuals are forever spouting about the supposedly high number of visible minorities that receive welfare, all the while blatantly ignoring that there are many, many more Caucasians that receive welfare benefits than any minority group!

And don't get me started on the immigration issue! Similarly, uninformed individuals decry the fact that "immigrants are taking away jobs from Americans" - sorry, but I don't see many Americans lining up to become dishwashers, maids, gardeners, nannies, landscapers, laborers, sweat-shop employees, etc.  Not that this is the only type of work that immigrants are capable of, but it's very easy for undocumented workers to perform these trades.


----------



## cuchuflete

Beth,
I'm not trying to open a debate about immigration or jail populations or frequency distribution of dishwashers by ethnicity.

The whole point is that free debate causes discomfort.
Ideas and opinions collide.  People get offended.  Not because offense is necessarily meant, but because truth is not always a feel-good remedy for what ails us.

I have no inclination to join the political parties of the right, with their "we are pure and good and everyone else is inferior and misguided and should go back where they came from" idiocy.  At the same time, I take severe issue with left-leaning colleagues who are all for free speech until and unless the topic gets "sensitive".   Honest debate is going to make us squirm, and have to confront--with facts, I hope--some things that are not as we might have them be.


----------



## french4beth

Not at all, cuchu - I agree with what you said, and was just throwing in my 2 cents' worth.  As many posters have mentioned, if everyone has the right to free speech, not everything that is said publicly is worth listening to... But, I'd much rather give everyone the same rights, and then have the right to disagree and/or filter out whatever is not relevant to me.


----------



## emma42

Yes.  That sort of suppression is not only dishonest, but can cause real harm in respect of the sort of issues the pc lobby purport to be concerned about.  If one thinks one is on the side of justice, then one should be honest about things, even if some questions are difficult.


----------



## Outsider

I'm not sure what to think of so-called hate speech legislation. It hasn't become an issue in my country yet.

The intentions behind it seem good, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. As a matter of principle, I would tend to lean towards allowing everyone to express any ideologies they wished. Shouting "fire" in a crowded room is a different matter, because that can directly threaten the physical integrity of others.

It seems more important to fight the discrimination still enshrined in the system, than to attack the opinions of particular wheels in the machine...


----------



## emma42

Yes, it is "more important to attack the discrimination still enshrined in the system", but the weapons for part of that attack will  be words.  So we are back again.


----------



## Outsider

emma42 said:
			
		

> [...] but the weapons for part of that attack will  be words.


Yes and no. The weapons for changing the system are political (get organized, protest, let the media know how you feel about issues, denounce injustices, etc.) Can't you do that without controlling what others say in public?


----------



## emma42

I didn't mean that outsider. I meant that in order to "get organized, protest..." _we_ would use words - propaganda, communication, "Words as Weapons" to quote the title of the great late Paul Foot's book. I thought that was clear, but obviously not!  I use "we" to mean those of us who don't like right wing bigots and the like.


----------



## LV4-26

Yes, all those people should be allowed to speak. Why? Because shutting them up deprives us of the opportunity to reply and to say why they're wrong.
I believe that we must say again and again that revisionists (for instance) are liars and that we must explain why again and again. Let them speak so that we can answer.

 Every statement or opinion needs to be backed up lest the general level of political consciousness might be reduced to things like "it's right" "it's wrong", "it's disgusting", "it's fantastic".


----------



## emma42

Absolutely agreed, LV4.

I used to belong to a very far left political organisation and the party line was that nazis, fascists and the like should not be allowed the freedom of speech that they would deny others.  Because, for various reasons, I was open to such ideologies, I swallowed the party line hook, line (!) and sinker and argued the point vociferously.  I simply would not listen to more liberal points of view.  However, relatively quickly, I realised that this organisation was not the socialist utopian microcosm it purported to be, and left.  Since then, many of my views have changed, although some have remained the same.

The reason for my telling this personal story is that I know from personal experience that hard-liners' minds can sometimes be changed, even if one only plants a tiny seed.  This is important to realise and gives hope.


----------



## djchak

All I have to say is that i'm basically for freedom of speech, no matter what. A large part of the world might disagree, and it might not be right for all nations, but I would rather take the negative aspects of it, as the positive aspects eclipse it...


----------



## Bettie

I was watching in the news the other day that in some school here in the States a girl couldn't finish her speech, I think she was graduating from High School, but I am not sure, because she mentioned God and in some way she was promoting religion, or the School said so to justify why she couldn't finish the speech.


----------



## emma42

Hmmm.  Who does that remind you of?  Begins with N and ends with I.


----------



## djchak

Bettie said:
			
		

> I was watching in the news the other day that in some school here in the States a girl couldn't finish her speech, I think she was graduating from High School, but I am not sure, because she mentioned God and in some way she was promoting religion, or the School said so to justify why she couldn't finish the speech.



Hmm, yes, that's becuase of the strict (often overboard and PC) separation of "church and state". So if it's a "state" public school, you can not use the school property or event as a keynote speaker to promote god or religion.

But as long as she isn't doing it AT the event, or at school, it doesn't break any rules.

Intresting, isn't it. In one of the few countries where getting to own a gun is a "right", we have laws to keep people from mentioning god/religion in any state funded institution.....becuase we don't want to link the two together.
(in that context).


----------



## emma42

Yes, it is an extraordinary contradiction to my English mind.


----------



## geve

emma42 said:
			
		

> I wonder what forer@s think of the right to freedom of speech, no matter what is being said. In many democracies the concept of freedom of speech is held up for all to admire, but the reality is that many "speech freedoms" are withheld. For example, in England, it is illegal to "incite racial hatred" and, then, obviously, there are the libel and slander statutes.


In my mind, expressing one's opinion and inciting hatred are two different things.
If someone says "All the people from CountryX stink and steal", they're just being stupid, and I grant them the right to be publicly stupid.
If someone says "All the people from CountryX stink and steal and let's all go beat up some of these smelly thieves" then they're being stupid AND dangerous (because they might well find more stupid friends to follow them).

Sometimes incitation to hatred might be a bit more subtle, I admit. 
eg. "Let's deprive them of their lives and families and send them right back to "their" country"...


----------



## emma42

Well put, geve.  The problem with some of these extremist organisations is that they sometimes try to engage in mainstream politics, viz the BNP (again!)  I have heard senior members say, on TV, that they are not racist (!) and have nothing against foreigners/Asians/Jews/black people/eastern Europeans etc etc per se, but that multiculturalism does not work and is not fair on anyone.  This is just one example of these people's pathetic attempts to appeal to the public at large and get a foothold in mainstream politics/councils/parliament.


----------



## geve

Well yes, the legitimacy of extremist political organizations is a broad topic in itself... But I could replace "people from CountryX" by "women" or "homosexuals" or "Catholics" or "people with short legs". 

My point is, we need to differentiate opinion, denigration and incitation to hatred. I'm not saying it's easy...


----------



## emma42

It's not easy, that why we have lawyers (I am thinking of the statute dealing with "incitement to racial hatred" in English law). This is relatively recent law and, I imagine that there has not yet been enough case law to make the matter clear. I am, though, a bit out of touch with law now, having not worked in it for over a decade.


----------



## geve

There is such a law in France too (punishing "incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards one person or a group of persons because of their ethnic, nationality, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or handicap" (text here))

But I don't know how it's enforced exactly, and how "incitement to discrimination, hatred and violence" is defined.


----------



## emma42

Well, it will be gradually defined and refined by case law, as is usually the case (!) with sections worded like that. It is in England, anyway.


----------



## Seana

Hello Emma,

In my opinion the freedom of speech should be limited mainly by the tact, mannerliness and sensitivity, our ethical norms of behaviours which should be taken out from the family house.
Reading various threads of CD forum I have noticed that some forer@s have the little controversial views, the exchange of these thoughts here is very useful and bit educated for each of us because majority of senders and addressees are sophisticated enough to understand and proper analize every even extremly far from our own point of view.
But I also think that such opinions you mentioned earlier about race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or handicap and war related topics or other against peace shouldn't be shown over on a wide public debates or meetings because not always listeners are able to distance themselves from most contoversial ones. There are no regulations or norms which are able to stop people from using social dissatisfaction in different fields of course against others people by organising debates and public riots exactly in wrong direction.
I think a few posts have answered already - freedom of speech - but in my opinion not "complete' but respected the fundamental human rights of individuals.
Yeah, so where is freedom of speech then?


----------



## lizzeymac

emma42 said:
			
		

> What if an open-air meeting of holocaust revisionists is being held in a strong Jewish area, with probably people present who either survived the holocaust or who lost whole families?



Hi Emma
In 1977, the American Nazi Party planned a march in Skokie Illinios - Nazism & its symbols are not illegal in the US.
1 out of every 6 residents of Skokie was a Jewish survivor or relative of a victim of the Holocaust.  The ANP claimed the right of free speech while their Jewish "targets" claimed the right to live without intimidation. The town, arguing that the march would assault the sensibilities of its citizens and spark violence, obtained an injunction against the march.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (the lead lawyer was David Goldberger) defended the ANP in court - successfully.  30,000 ACLU member quit the organization and the march never happened for other reasons.  
Many Americans believe that even the most hated speech must be protected or else all speech is endangered.  "Hate speech" legislation is difficult.  Of course inciting violence should be illegal but it actually already is illegal in the US, in general terms.  
Every time you restrict a right for a "good" purpose there is the danger the same restriction could be turned or contorted & used for a "bad" purpose - Enemy Combatants, Official Secrets Acts, Echelon electronic eavesdropping, Guantanamo, racial profiling, etc.


----------



## emma42

Absolutely, lizziemac, and thank you for that interesting and significant history.

But this was a "march" involving many people physically present in the streets, with all the noise, sound of feet (boots?) and opportunity for facial expressions and physical gestures that that represents.  It was not just a meeting in one location.

We have had such marches (on both sides of the political fence) banned for reasons such as possibility of "breach of the peace"/security reasons.  Mere meetings, however, are much more difficult to ban.


----------



## lizzeymac

Yes - meetings as opposed to marches is an issue here as well - most of these laws can only be applied to "public" spaces or property.  The FBI (& Homeland Security) are expressing "concerns" about what happens inside mosques and have surveillence on quite a few of them.  I suppose I understand their reasoning but it reminds me of the FBI response to the Civil Rights Movement - they bugged Baptist Churches & the homes of  King, Abernathy, Parks, etc.


Thomas Jefferson had many flaws & moral inconsistencies, but he got this part right -

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

-


----------



## emma42

Can't argue with Jefferson and Voltaire.  But, yes, it does remind one of what you said, and McCarthyism.  There seems to be real paranoia from the government, rather than just scapegoatism for the benefit of the masses.


----------

