I'd like to start some discussions, if I can, and I think the best way to start a discussion is to voice an opinion that might be controversial and then step back and let others react to it.
To that end, this is the first of a short series of posts where I'll do exactly that. I intend to release the posts daily, and I think I'm only going to do three or four for now.
Please feel free to discuss, argue, agree and disagree in the comments section. All I ask is that everyone to be polite and respectful to everyone else.
~~~~~~~
Should Freedom of Speech Have Limits?
As a tween-ager, I decided you should read/listen to everyone's point of view, then make up your own mind. Censorship, i.e. obliterating the words of dissenters, struck me as a bully's tactic, even at that age, although I probably couldn't have put that concept into very eloquent words then.
But here's the ugliest wart on the backside of freedom of speech. Hate-speech.
Hate-speech is at the heart of a contradiction that has always unsettled me. On one hand, I do believe in legally limiting people's ability to disseminate hate-speech. On the other, isn't it hypocritical for me to promote freedom of speech, then turn around and say, "but only up to this point"?
It's something I've long been uncomfortable with, and I only recently sorted out a rationalization that satisfies me. It runs something like this:
Freedom of speech exists to champion and glorify communication. Throughout history, humans have dealt with their differences in many brutal ways, but in our best moments, we deal with them by talking it out. When we speak to one another, we gain understanding, we gain knowledge, we gain tolerance, and sometimes, we even fix our problems. In short, when humans beings talk to one another, we become a society instead of a war-zone. I think that's worth glorifying.
Hate-speech, on the other hand, encourages people to stop talking and start hitting. It seeks to halt communication and prevent understanding. It undermines that which freedom of speech exists in order to promote. Thus, I don't believe hate-speech deserves to be protected under freedom of speech; City Hall should not issue digging permits to people who intend to remove the foundations of the city.
I'll defend someone's right to speak about even abhorrent beliefs, so long as they don't advocate silencing anyone else, including those who disagree with them.
~~~~~~~
What do you think? What limits should freedom of speech have, if any? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
5 comments:
I mostly agree with you, A person should be free to say anything even if it is to encourage someone to silence another.
Someone listening to that person hate filled speech is still responsible for their actions.
If a third party then goes and silences another person. Is it the responsibility of the person who spouted the hate speech, or the person who commited the act.
I would arguer that the person who commited the act is responsible. The "he told me to" is not a defence. At the end of the day a singles persons decision is theirs to make, they can not blame another for there decision, and they must accept full responsibility for there actions.
The west is built on this foundation of Law, we are equally responsible under the law for our actions, no matter who told us to do it.
Here is another point to consider, if you limit hate speech because it causes others to behave badly against others, then you will have to ban religious speech as well as it causes people to hate people of other faiths. People would argue that "there faith" preaches peace, but that is my point, religious speech promotes us vs. them mentality.
And isn't that as detrimental to everyone one living in harmony as the most vile hate speech promoting the extermination of a group?
When limiting hate speak, it is always incumbent upon those who want to limit it to ask these very difficult questions, like how far can you go? There is always a compromise between total freedom for the individual and public safety. Let there be no doubt about this: It is necessary, in a society where humans have to get along (more or less), to make compromises between freedom and public safety/order. It's why we have laws and law enforcement, after all.
The big issue is that the compromise must not go too far. We have to curtail freedoms just so far, not too far, but just enough so everyone has the maximum freedom and yet society remains stable.
Unfortunately, people tend to want their full freedom for themselves and none or severely limited freedom for others, generally those with whom they disagree. We don't all stop to consider what we learned about sharing in preschool when the emotions are running high!
For me, the answer regarding hate speech has pretty much been dealt with by most lawmaking bodies. Laws do exist whereby speech which incites violence, acts of terrorism or already illegal actions is against the law. What more can you do and remain reasonable? To prohibit any speech you disliked would mean someone could do the same thng to you so reasonable people have to accept the existence of KKK rallys and the American Humane Society trying to outlaw people keeping cats and dogs as pets (yes, this is a fact)!
It's a tough and uncomfortable issue.
OxyJen...
What happened to my entry?
I've come by a few times, and there is no trace of it...
??
Chris
Chris: I don't have comment moderation turned on, so if you've posted anything, it should have showed up immediately.
Blogger ate it? :-(
Post a Comment