A few days ago i wrote a piece on ‘Freedom of Speech’ and the fact that i feel like i may be the only person in the world who doesn’t think it’s such a great idea.
To be honest, i was expecting a bit of a backlash, but no-one seemed particularly interested – in commenting either way.
Then i read a really great piece by Megan Butler on a friend’s blog, titled ‘We need to talk about Charlie’ in which she reminded us of the November achievement of landing a spacecraft on a comet hurtling through space, which didn’t seem to get quite as much attention as the scantily-clad gun-toting women who featured on the shirt of Dr Matt Taylor, who gave a press conference about the event.
Megan basically shouted out a call for consistency in the things we do and don’t allow, if we are calling for freedom. She ended off her piece with these words:
“I need to point out that I think both Taylor’s shirt and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are awful. But freedom means that people are free to choose well as well as to choose badly. I’m Catholic and have very limited experience in the headscarf-wearing department. However, for me, supporting free speech and freedom of expression means supporting more than the right to publish drawings; it means supporting the right for people to wear what they choose even if it isn’t what I would choose.
So, while “Je suis Charlie” is the campaign gathering the media attention, we need to be able to say “Je suis Susan” or “Je suis Matt” with as much conviction.”
i still wasn’t completely sold on the idea of free speech, but the idea of being consistent if we’re calling for it resonated strongly. And then i read this comment by Shingai Tichatonga Ngara on a Facebook share of Megan’s post:
My only question/caveat is that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence. The power of being able to speak freely comes hand in hand with the responsibility to deal with the outcomes of that free speech.
And i really liked that. The idea that freedom of speech allows you to say stupid, mean or even hurtful things. But that it doesn’t condone the saying of those things or mean that you will be free of consequence. So yes, you can post that racist statement on Twitter, but also you just lost your job because your company doesn’t have to hire a racist. Or something like that.
i don’t think this pulls me completely across to the ‘Fight for everyone to have Freedom of Speech’ crowd, but i do think that it paints a broader picture that is helpful.
What about you? Do you think everyone should be able to say whatever they want to say all the time? Or should there be some systems or controls?
[To see the rest of Megan’s article, head across to Swart Donkey over here]
[…] [For my follow-up piece on the Debris that can accompany Freedom of Speech, click here] […]
Great post Brett! I’ve also been struggling with this. Whilst I realise that freedom of speech is important, I don’t think that gives you a right to be unnecessarily disrespectful, especially in a public sphere.
When I see someone walking around all clothed over it looks suspicious. Why hide your face? It is disrespectful in my culture to even wear sunglasses when talking to others, let alone a full cloak over your head.
[…] How Can Man Die Better – part black racism? […]
And in the case of Charlie Hebdo, a consequence of the way they chose to exercise their free speech was, they got shot. And then, presumably, they got to find out once and for all whether or not their assumptions about eternal consequences were correct.
Please spare me the inevitable knee-jerk reactions to that statement. I know it seems terribly insensitive to a horrifying event. I know it sounds as though I’m saying, “Well, serve them right!” I’m NOT, okay? They were utterly obnoxious, but I don’t think they deserved to die for it – either temporally or eternally – and I’m not glad they did. I think it’s horrible.
BUT … if you poke a mad dog in the eye, don’t be surprised if it bites you. And if you’re a mad dog and you bite someone, don’t be surprised if you find yourself lined up for a date with the needle. Etcetera … it’s all consequences.
The consequence of these events that I find most disturbing is the possibility that they will lead to further limits on personal freedom.
Just one thought: We hold the whole concept of “freedom of speech”, especially the freedom to criticise and even ridicule the religious establishment of the day to the Reformation movement, where our reformers sought to challenge the then Roman church who pretty much had a stranglehold on political life as well interpretation of the Bible.
The biggest danger to curtailing freedom of speech around religion is that we risk putting the control of ideas into the hand of a power elite once again, perhaps a little more subtly but still removing the ability of an individual to develop and take responsibility for a personal relationship with the divine / universe / God.
Oops – meant: We *owe the whole…
Freedom of speech against or for ideas! Religion is an idea. Regarding Muslims wearing black head gear covering up, let them do it in their own lands. Westerners are not permitted to walk around uncovered in Muslim lands, so why the hypocrisy?
I’m for the right of free speech… but such a right is an EXTREMELY powerful right… and, as Uncle Ben says, “With great power comes great responsibility”. If you choose to use that power, be sure that you use it responsibly, with great care, and with that sense of obligation that comes from knowing that such a power can destroy someone…
9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.(N) 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs?(O) Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
I am no expert on SA Law but as far as I know, the Law does place reasonable limits when free speech crosses into hate speech or the incitement to violence.
However,
For example is it not hate speech and the height of insensitivity when Christians call being gay an abomination? Or call the intimacy between gay people unnatural?
There is nothing wrong with the ridiculing of bad ideas. Religion deserves a heck of a lot of ridiculing in my opinion. Look at Raif Badawy in Saudi Arabia who has been sentenced to 10 years in jail, a 100 000 dollar fine and a 1000 lashes administered every friday after prayers 50 at a time for simply questioning Islam. This is absolute barbarism. Some of you are so concerned with offending religious people that you don’t see how barbaric it is to kill people for saying something or drawing something… WTF????
Religious people feel free to judge and tell the rest of us we are sinful and going to hell and blah blah blah but as soon as the heat is cranked up on them, all of a sudden there is something wrong with free speech… Hhayi suka!
If you don’t like the secular insistence on free speech go to North korea or Russia or any of these Islamic countries and see how you like em apples.
Free speech and the questioning of authority go hand in hand.
How do any of you explain the fatwa on Salman Rushdie for writing the Satanic verses?
Or the murder of Theo Van Gogh for making a documentary by Muslim Fundamentalists?
Very few religious people seem bothered when that free speech leads to the explosion of suicides amongst gay teens but gosh let some satirists draw a picture of a grown man who married a six year old(what we godless people call a paedophile) and you’re all falling over each other to try explain away the barbarism and criminality of his followers….smh