In my last article on freedom of expression I set out some of the key reasons commonly put for complete freedom of speech, even when it comes to those who express views mainstream society deems appalling. In this article I intend to go over some of reasons often put for why societies should not embrace unfettered freedom of speech and should instead seek to restrict freedom of speech to a limited degree.
To begin with, one of the reasons some people say that freedom of speech should not be absolute is for the protection of minorities. Though certainly there is less bigotry in our society than there was even twenty years ago, there is still too much of it and so, they say, we should be able to prevent people from inciting hatred of particular marginalised groups in society. Marginalized groups might include people of colour, immigrants and refugees, disabled people, homosexuals, transsexuals and people with mental illnesses. Such people should not have to be subjected to profoundly hurtful and intimidating language when they’re simply walking down the street when such a use of freedom of speech contributes nothing to intellectual debate. Taking a value judgement, some feel it is better to prevent such people from verbally abusing minorities than to keep freedom of speech as an absolute.
It is also argued that stirring up racial or other forms of hatred could potentially lead people to go further than hate and actually commit violence on the premise of their hatred for a particular group in society, seeing it as yet another reason why expressing hate should be illegal.
And it seems to be the case that the British state is on their side on this one, since we have what are called hate speech laws which make it illegal for people to incite hatred towards a person on the basis of, for example, their race, religion or sexuality. You can be fined and even imprisoned for breaking hate speech laws.
Some also argue that having complete freedom of speech would be wrong because it allows people to offend and mock people’s deeply-held beliefs – particularly religious beliefs. Up until fairly recently the UK had blasphemy laws, though only in relation to Christianity. People argue that by attacking the beliefs by which people live their lives you are causing unnecessary hurt to such people.
Another reason for why freedom of speech should not be absolute is that it would allow extremists to promote their dangerous ideologies unchecked. Islamists, for example, believe in the right of a man to beat his wife, the stoning of women for adultery and the cutting off of peoples’ hands if they commit theft. Furthermore, many people who take on this ideology then become jihadists and commit terrorist acts on the basis of their extreme worldview. People therefore argue that such people must be censored because to not do so would not only be allowing barbaric ideas to spread further, it would also increase the risk of people being murdered in a terror attack.
So, now that you’ve heard both sides of the freedom of speech and expression argument, which side sways you?
Image: By Daniel Rothamel [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
0 Comment:
Be the first one to comment on this article.