| Markets [11:26] | R/$:7.62 | R/£:11.41 | R/€:9.58 | Gold:1207.15 | Plat:1523.00 | Oil:74.80 |
Subscribe to RSS
Why do we insist we have freedom of speech when we haven't?
Saturday, November 07, 2009
[ Reads:1340 / Comments:1 / 853 ]
[ Reads:1340 / Comments:1 / 853 ]
If you think about it, we do not all have the ‘right to free speech’ in the careless way we have been led to believe.
The many international conventions and charters, the ‘national’ Bills and Declarations of Rights over the centuries, the modern constitutions that enshrine this great individual freedom, often recognise explicitly that there are limits to it. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 stated that ‘every citizen shall be responsible for abuses (of freedom of expression) as shall be defined by law.’
How much greater is the need to make citizens ‘responsible for abuses’ in the enormously more complex, multi-ethnic and democratic world of today. Under international law you are not free to incite genocide. You may not legally indulge in hate speech against gender, race, ethnicity or religion in the new South Africa. The famous First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing free speech is not taken to include, among other things, obscenity and criminal speech (threats and menaces). The most democratic societies restrict pornography and circumscribe what may be said or published to protect people’s reputations and privacy.
If there are many areas where we do not enjoy free speech, there are many more where custom dictates that we restrain ourselves. We all know we are expected to speak only kindly and considerately to our partners and children, relatives and friends. We try, though we often fail, to address business colleagues and associates politely. Even internet posts manage from time to time to make a point without verbal abuse. These examples may seem trivial, but social life would be intolerable if we did not curb our tongues in all kinds of ways every day.
Where on earth did the idea come from that we can say anything we like?
One source is certainly Voltaire - though this well known ‘quote’ from a biography sums up Voltaire’s overall attitude rather than reports his actual words: ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
This piece of eighteenth century Gallic gallantry is impossible for us to accept now. Had Voltaire been able to foresee what his viewpoint would one day oblige him to license - approval of the Holocaust and its denial; vicious racist support of Apartheid; broadcasts in Rwanda fifteen years ago that urged people to ‘kill the vermin, kill the cockroaches’ - would the most celebrated advocate of human reason from the great European Age of Reason have been so confident of his position?
When Noam Chomsky goes further by saying, ‘If you believe in freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise,’ it does not intelligently follow that we must allow glossy brochures promoting paedophilia. It is the unqualified claim that produces such absurdity.
The headline to this article can be taken two ways and the way we usually take it is now clear. What we insist on when we insist on our right of free speech is our right to speak out freely on two subjects above all: religion and politics.
The next question is why are we far from agreed on that?
.
The many international conventions and charters, the ‘national’ Bills and Declarations of Rights over the centuries, the modern constitutions that enshrine this great individual freedom, often recognise explicitly that there are limits to it. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 stated that ‘every citizen shall be responsible for abuses (of freedom of expression) as shall be defined by law.’
How much greater is the need to make citizens ‘responsible for abuses’ in the enormously more complex, multi-ethnic and democratic world of today. Under international law you are not free to incite genocide. You may not legally indulge in hate speech against gender, race, ethnicity or religion in the new South Africa. The famous First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing free speech is not taken to include, among other things, obscenity and criminal speech (threats and menaces). The most democratic societies restrict pornography and circumscribe what may be said or published to protect people’s reputations and privacy.
If there are many areas where we do not enjoy free speech, there are many more where custom dictates that we restrain ourselves. We all know we are expected to speak only kindly and considerately to our partners and children, relatives and friends. We try, though we often fail, to address business colleagues and associates politely. Even internet posts manage from time to time to make a point without verbal abuse. These examples may seem trivial, but social life would be intolerable if we did not curb our tongues in all kinds of ways every day.
Where on earth did the idea come from that we can say anything we like?
One source is certainly Voltaire - though this well known ‘quote’ from a biography sums up Voltaire’s overall attitude rather than reports his actual words: ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
This piece of eighteenth century Gallic gallantry is impossible for us to accept now. Had Voltaire been able to foresee what his viewpoint would one day oblige him to license - approval of the Holocaust and its denial; vicious racist support of Apartheid; broadcasts in Rwanda fifteen years ago that urged people to ‘kill the vermin, kill the cockroaches’ - would the most celebrated advocate of human reason from the great European Age of Reason have been so confident of his position?
When Noam Chomsky goes further by saying, ‘If you believe in freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise,’ it does not intelligently follow that we must allow glossy brochures promoting paedophilia. It is the unqualified claim that produces such absurdity.
The headline to this article can be taken two ways and the way we usually take it is now clear. What we insist on when we insist on our right of free speech is our right to speak out freely on two subjects above all: religion and politics.
The next question is why are we far from agreed on that?
.
5159 Bonginkosi Mthembu
[ Monday, November 16, 2009 | 2:25:36 PM ]
Paul, I think it is generally true that most of the things expected of us have very firmly drawn boundaries. Total freedom strictly speaking should include total anarchy. Total democracy should include all the ideologies we abhor. But I think when we speak of free speech, without saying so, we assume that it is free speech within the confines of presently acceptable societal norms.
This is my sense of it all. I could be wrong.
Part of the reason I am saying this is partly reflected in conversations one has with parents. The politeness of it all etc. largely stemming from the societal norms of being polite to one's elders. As you grow older, it becomes (sometimes NOT) to have those conversations with one's parents. So, free speech is only free within societal boundaries.
This is my sense of it all. I could be wrong.
Part of the reason I am saying this is partly reflected in conversations one has with parents. The politeness of it all etc. largely stemming from the societal norms of being polite to one's elders. As you grow older, it becomes (sometimes NOT) to have those conversations with one's parents. So, free speech is only free within societal boundaries.