On the freedom of speech
Advertisements
X
Reading Options
Font Size
A-
15px
A+
Width
Reset
X
Table of Contents
Loading... please wait.
“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
―
―
In today's world the freedom of speech is a most contentious topic. And yet, with the advent of new technology which has dragged the world into a new era in which information is more powerful than even nuclear weapons. Alongside this explosion of technology came the rise of authoritarian regimes which have slowly and steadily pushed us into a world of propaganda, political correctness and post truth. As such it has once again become important to fight to maintain the freedom of speech for every single person on the planet.
But the question remains, why is free speech important and what role does it play in the progress and cultivation of a free and prosperous society?
Well let me explain it you with an example. Let's say that it you are living with a roommate in house you have rented together. One day you return home after a bout of torrential rains a notice that your roof is leaking. You confront your roommate with this problem but he disregards your comments and refuses to pay his fair share to repair it..
You let it go this time as you are tired and decide to confront him in the morning again. Come next morning you once again ask him to pay his fair share and to solve the problem of the leaking roof. He looks you dead in the eye and says that there is no leaky roof. Even after you point out the leak to him he refuses to acknowledge that there is in fact a leak. Eventually your roommate gives in and the problem is solved. Now imagine if the same situation had occurred but you didn't have the right to point out the leaking roof. Would the problem of the leaking roof have been solved? Or would your roommate have just continued to ignore the problem?
Now imagine the same happening on citywide or countrywide scale. Would it still be acceptable to not point out the leaking roof?
Well let me explain it you with an example. Let's say that it you are living with a roommate in house you have rented together. One day you return home after a bout of torrential rains a notice that your roof is leaking. You confront your roommate with this problem but he disregards your comments and refuses to pay his fair share to repair it..
You let it go this time as you are tired and decide to confront him in the morning again. Come next morning you once again ask him to pay his fair share and to solve the problem of the leaking roof. He looks you dead in the eye and says that there is no leaky roof. Even after you point out the leak to him he refuses to acknowledge that there is in fact a leak. Eventually your roommate gives in and the problem is solved. Now imagine if the same situation had occurred but you didn't have the right to point out the leaking roof. Would the problem of the leaking roof have been solved? Or would your roommate have just continued to ignore the problem?
Now imagine the same happening on citywide or countrywide scale. Would it still be acceptable to not point out the leaking roof?
Systems created by humanity are flawed because humans are flawed. And rather than inferring from it a sense of hopelessness, it is imperative that we account for the stupidity of humanity and employ countermeasures. The freedom of speech is one such countermeasure; in particular, it is one that is absolutely necessary and a precondition to the creation of every solution to the problems that we face.
Does that mean though, that we must allow all kinds of speech without any regard for the consequences of said speech? Of course not. Then there must be some common sense restrictions that must be put in place to maintain civil decency in a free society.
Let's discuss them now.
“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”
―
―
Firstly, let's get the obvious out of the way. Child pornography and animal abuse , etc. must be banned. Therefore the first restriction on the freedom of speech is to prevent the propagation of any material not used as evidence, that objectively increases the sufferings of innocent unrelated creatures for the purpose of its own creation.
For example child pornography that cannot be created without the abuse of children as a precondition is not under the purview of the freedom of speech. This however does not include doujinshi that include only drawings made out of purely the imagination of it's creator. Because when this is blocked, historically it is noted that the restrictions are then seamlessly extended to anime and manga and even cartoons that may be considered in the subjective opinion of prudes and moral authoritarians to be perverse and degenerate. This as such also puts a limit to the creativity of others and artists, therefore infringing on their freedoms and preventing the progress of human civilization even if by just a little bit.
For example child pornography that cannot be created without the abuse of children as a precondition is not under the purview of the freedom of speech. This however does not include doujinshi that include only drawings made out of purely the imagination of it's creator. Because when this is blocked, historically it is noted that the restrictions are then seamlessly extended to anime and manga and even cartoons that may be considered in the subjective opinion of prudes and moral authoritarians to be perverse and degenerate. This as such also puts a limit to the creativity of others and artists, therefore infringing on their freedoms and preventing the progress of human civilization even if by just a little bit.
Secondly, calls to violence should also not fall under the purview of free speech. Now it is important to clearly delineate as to what constitutes a call to violence. In my personal opinion a call to violence is only classified as such if it includes specificity. For example, consider the phrase "Kill all men". In general this would be considered a call to violence but as this phrase is lacking in the specificity of time, place, method and the conditions under which the violence must occur or even the relevance of the comments to the topic at hands or it's context in the situatiion, I would like to put it under the purview of the freedom of speech. On the other hand, the phrase "Kill all men tomorrow!" or " Kill all men in London" would be considered a call to violence due to the specificity of the statements.
Now you might wonder "Why bother with such pedantic details?". That is because in this day and age even history teachers are being censored for teaching about Nazi Germany and the confederacy among other things that the cultural zeitgeist of today considers offensive. Does that mean that we should not allow them to teach that? Should we just get rid of the history that offends us? Should we also then start burning books and bring me down statues like the Nazis did? No. Not at all. The same happens to comedians and commentators you subscribe to , to policy makers and university professors you learn from, to artists and musicians you adore and most importantly, to you yourself. That is why considering specificity is important when putting restrictions on the calls to violence. Consider the case of youtuber CountDankula, who was imprisoned by the UK government for a silly little nazi joke he made with the use of his girlfriend's pug. CountDankula trained the pug to do the nazi salute because he thought it would be funny to prove to his girlfriend that even her cute pug can be uncute at times. For this harmless prank he was sentenced to prison and fined over 800 pounds. This is why it is important to consider the relevance, context and specificity of the speech. Because your freedoms can be taken away at any time if you aren't willing to fight for it even to the point of contesting pedantic details.
Another restriction is on the spread of misinformation. Anyone deliberately found to be spreading misinformation should be severely punished in a most immediate fashion if it is proven beyond any doubt that they had access to the truth of the matter but chose to ignore it in favour of their own false version of the events. This may seem like an extreme measure to throttle the ability of the news media to report on the truth but you must realize that the news media rarely ever reports about the truth. Most of them selectively shine a light on just what would benefit the agenda that they are pushing while disregarding everything else, including evidence to the contrary as mere fake news and conspiracy theories. It's funny how so many of these young bright eyed journalists joined the profession to to speak truth to power and yet when given the difficult choice to do so, they often just prefer to be a tool of the establishment rather than fighting for their ideals.
But you must be wondering, "Does this ever happen in real life ? I'm sure we have laws against that already. Why is it necessary to implement such draconian measures ?"
That is because a person or organization with sufficient reach and influence may incite violence and result in the deaths of thousands indirectly but then claim that what they made was an innocent comment in good faith and that it is not their fault that thousands of lives were lost since it is their freedom of speech to say so or maybe they are just reporting on the news from their personal point of view. This how genocides have been justified in the not so distant past. In fact, consider the role of the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines , a rwandan radio station with a large influence which played a crucial role in inciting the rwandan genocide of the Tutsi people by demeaning the tribes and playing on prejudices to call for the genocide of an entire group of people. Its stated aim was “to create harmonious development in Rwandese society” but nothing could have been further from the truth. It was set up and financed by Hutu extremists to prepare the people of Rwanda for genocide by demonising the Tutsi and encouraging hate and violence.
Some people, including the Belgian ambassador and staff of several aid agencies recognised the danger and asked for international help in shutting down the broadcasts, but it was impossible to persuade western diplomats to take it seriously. They dismissed the station as a joke.
David Rawson, the US ambassador, said that its euphemisms were open to interpretation. The US, he said, believed in freedom of speech. The radio told people to go to work and everyone knew that meant get your machete and kill Tutsis. Many Rwandans, however, knew the threat. ‘I listened to RTLMC’, said a survivor, ‘because if you were mentioned over the airways, you were sure to be carted off a short time later by the extremists. You knew you had to change your address at once.
David Rawson, the US ambassador, said that its euphemisms were open to interpretation. The US, he said, believed in freedom of speech. The radio told people to go to work and everyone knew that meant get your machete and kill Tutsis. Many Rwandans, however, knew the threat. ‘I listened to RTLMC’, said a survivor, ‘because if you were mentioned over the airways, you were sure to be carted off a short time later by the extremists. You knew you had to change your address at once.
But this was in 1993. Let's consider a more recent example for more context. The Anti-CAA protests in the asian country of India are a very recent example, happening just last year. In this case, the Indian media houses riled up the Muslim population by spreading the misinformation that the Citizenship Amendment Act would strip them of their citizenship and the big bad "fascist" government would then systematically cull their population. This was of course wholly untrue and in fact, when questioned on whether the news anchors had even read the CAA bill, the majority of them replied that they hadn't read a single page of it. This misleading information though caused rioting and resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent people over the course of two months. The news media of course faced no recourse for their role in the deaths of these people and even to this day squarely denies any responsibility for it.
2
