‘Should
we expect an absolute freedom of speech?’
NO,
we should not have an absolute freedom of speech. The word ''absolute'' makes
me nervous.
<S%^&> <Hold sign up>
In
the abstract, freedom of speech is desirable and essential to our way of life.
Who can argue against it? History has taught us that civilisations and human
relations advance when accompanied by the free exchange of ideas, information
and intimacies. Without free speech the tyrannical persist, the corrupt go
unchecked, the maniac prosper, hatred and greed spread pathogenically and the
autonomous, citizens like you and I become quashed. Freedom of speech allows
for society to evolve, for ideas to grow and for communities to develop.
Freedom of speech allows you to be you, for me to be me and for everyone to sit
here comfortable in their freedoms, safe and unrestricted by persecution and
subjugation.
Taking
free speech strips us of our individuality.
Look at the recent uprisings in North Africa. After decades of
repressive regimes, a desire for freedom of speech, the essential prerequisite
of all other civil and political rights, helped animate the courageous people
who flocked to the streets. People fought for their right for intellectual
autonomy and in the Streets of Tunis, Cairo and Tripoli the will of the people
won over the oppressive, the subjugative and
the tyrannical. These heroes fought for their ability seek an identity,
to speak their minds and to form their own ideas.
The
information in the WikiLeaks cables showed that the common assessment of the
old regime corruption was shared by the hierarchy within the dominant
superpower. Access to this information emboldened brave people to more fully
assert their rights as citizens. They amplified their struggle by swapping news
and manifestos online, bypassing the compromised traditional media, to share
their perspective with the world.
<F*&^> <Hold sign up>
But
does absolute freedom of speech violate other personal freedoms, to safety and
autonomy? Look at freedom of speech as it is exercised in that same dominant
superpower, the one with a first amendment to guarantee it. There it verges on
becoming corrosive. Exercised by an unconstrained media, voiced by commentators
who seek to incite reaction with ever more inflammatory words, or by those
tapping away behind screens of anonymity - hideous, hurtful things are said.
This can make people fearful, angry and defensive, hatred, malice and
abhorrence prosper. The weak suffer . It does not turn the level of
civilisation up.
Finding
appropriate boundaries to frame freedom of speech is one of the constant
struggles. Judgment is essential. The right needs to be balanced against the
damage that its unfettered exercise may cause. There are issues of security and
personal safety, the value of truth and honesty, the need to treat others with
respect. It is not true that only sticks and stones can hurt; ignorant,
dishonest, malicious, corrupt words can also do enormous damage.
<B0m6
the F*%$#@!^> <Hold sign up>
It
is quite right that there should be a perpetual struggle to push the boundaries
of what can be said in a civilised society. What and when are the two key
variables. The question needs to be posed. How do we protect our children, our reputation,
our national security, our social cohesion, our truth and our privacy?
Legal
restraints operate in conjunction with social norms that change with the times.
They cool an absolute freedom, which could otherwise become toxic. Placing
restrains on freedom of speech ensures that hatred and oppression do not
pathogenically spread unchecked testing the limits while preserving security
and respect is a useful enterprise. Freedom of speech is not absolute, but
essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment