i should probably disable comments on this one, but i generally want to understand.
Let me just jump in and say it, although i do feel like i am the only person in the world that feels like this, given the fuss people generally put up about this sort of thing, altho i don’t know that i’ve had many direct conversations about it specifically, but here it is:
I don’t know that i believe that Freedom of Speech should be a right.
There, i said it. [Hides behind couch]
For so many people [and it feels like everyone, feel free to let me know if there is anyone else out there who actually, gasp, thinks the same as me on this, and i am also open to the possibility that i could be wrong in my opinion] it feels like this is no-questions-asked a right that each and every person in the world should have.
You know, ‘smart’ slogans like this:
I call Bullshit.
Maybe it’s just because i have a blog with a comments section where people have come and told me i hate animals or i hate people who work with animals, or where in the past week a group of trolling trolls have set up camp to spew their racist rants [some of which i have published as i try give space for most comments, but a fair amount which i actually just could not bring myself to share with anyone else cos of their complete lack of compassion or human decency]…
Maybe it’s because i have spent any time in a comments section where a person has written about religion or LGBT rights or race or rape culture or the fair treatment of women…
Maybe it’s because of sitting in a waiting room yesterday listening to the kind of pure-offensive-hate-speech rap music that was blared out on the streets of Kensington almost daily when we lived there and you know what, mister misogynic anti-woman rapper guy, i DON’T believe you should have freedom of speech if you are going to use it that way. I really just don’t.
Maybe it’s simply because sometimes [often!] people say some really stupid and really mean and really unnecessary stuff. And i just do not quite understand why we need to fight or die or rally or anything to allow that.
Having said all that:
[1] How would you police it if it weren’t so? Probably impossible, because one person’s “clever satirical barb” is another’s “mouth instrument of satan!” – it is a subjective thing and so would clearly be quite difficult to figure out what is okay and what is not.
[2] i saw a cartoon by the Charlie Hebdo people that i found incredibly offensive in terms of mocking the Trinity involved in a three way sex act. So i would say that that kind of ‘Freedom of Speech’ is not something i’m super happy to fight for, because it is hurtful by mocking something that is the most important thing in my life. However, even with this picture in mind, that NEVER makes it okay for them to be killed. God is definitely big enough to defend Himself and they will stand before Him one day. So while i am opposed to ‘Freedom of Speech’ being the entitled mantra of so many, i do not think that killing someone for misusing it is ever okay.
So that’s me on this, but i am genuinely curious as to why others [and seemingly everyone else in the world?] seems to think that freedom of speech should be a given. Please take a moment and let me know your thoughts…
[For my follow-up piece on the Debris that can accompany Freedom of Speech, click here]
Irresistibly Fish 
I’m wholly for freedom of speech because I believe in self-expression. I believe in having freedom of choice…religion, where I live, who I hang out with, what I say… Freedom of speech is, I think, meant to prevent the government or those in power from controlling what we say (eg Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984).
I also believe that with great freedom comes great responsibility. I feel that’s the part people tend to forget – freedom of speech shouldn’t be freedom to offend.
Satire, for instance, should be used to inform/call out wrongs/etc with an intention to improve what is – and sometimes that happens through offence, however I feel for the most part Charlie’s goal wasn’t informing or improving the status quo, but rather to offend. Their end goal was offence…and that I have a problem with…
Now, did 12 people deserve to die for it? NO! Most definitely not.
All I’m saying is that people should have the freedom to choose what they say, but should use freedom of speech responsibly.
Thanks T, i think you captured my thoughts in a nutshell.
So who gets to define “responsibly”? And what is the penalty if you’re not “responsible”? And who imposes the penalty?
Freedom of speech for or against ideas or religion should be allowed. If I prefer my dogs over people then I should be allowed to voice that. If I don’t like freeloaders then I should be allowed to say it. However if it is directed at an individual and personal then one should be careful.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, freedom of speech may be one of the worst ways to regulate human communication, but it is the best of all that have been tried.
The problem with putting limits to freedom of speech (other than the obvious incitement of violence) is that the process of what will be allowable or not allowable becomes a game of power. And the problem with power is not that it corrupts, but that it attracts the corruptible.
This is especially true when we try to curtail speech around ideas, and religious beliefs are really ideas. Many countries that try and put laws in place around religious speech (whether to protect one religion or to create harmony among religions) often find those very laws end up having the opposite effect, or become targets for corruption.
For example, in the United States allowing one religion to put its symbols on government property led to a claim by a fringe religious movement getting a Satanic monument approved to be built next to a statue of the Ten Commandments: http://www.vice.com/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-monument-being-built-for-oklahomas-statehouse
We do have to realise that freedom of speech already comes with a number of protections:
(1) We are responsible for our words: Freedom of speech does not take away your responsibilities. We have civil laws around defamation and slander, and the right to seek relief under those laws. People are also allowed in the “court of public opinion” to challenge beliefs, as Chester Missing’s case against Steve Hofmeyr proved that Hofmeyr right to say racist things did not exempt him from people asking his sponsors whether they support his ideas and campaigning for sponsors to
withdraw their sponsorship.
(2) Freedom of speech does not take ways the right for content owners to moderate: Often when someone puts up a blog or news website, trolls whose comments are deleted often wrongly cry their freedom of speech is taken away. This is not true: an owner of content is totally in his rights to moderate content by commentors. The freedom of speech in this case is that the troll can create his or her own blog and publish their views there.
(3) Codes of Conduct: Codes of conduct are the correct ways to provide the balance between freedom of speech and the responsibilities that come with it, especially with media that is state funded. Broadly speaking, I believe the Broadcast Complaints Commission has done a good job of applying its mandate for South Africa public media.
I think these protections are adequate limits to freedom of speech, and together with freedom of speech itself, deserve to be protected.
Because if you take away that freedom, it’s a downward spiral to taking away other freedoms, and taking away human expression, policed by a possibly biased group of people (or person). You’d have to police something so intrinsic to being human. In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be a question about it, because in an ideal world people would have empathy. Empathy needs to be taught and encouraged as a value and a necessity. If people truly had empathy for one another, you would find that freedom of speech would yield no harm.
Allowing everyone to speak freely (and I have spent a great deal of time reading comments on the Charlie situation over the last few days) means that we can see the truth about what people are thinking. A lot of the time it’s not pleasant. But if we policed that – if we told people they could only use a certain collection of words or images in a certain way – how would we ever know what seethes beneath the surface of our collective consciousness? And if we did not know, if we allowed the bitterness and anger to bottle up and remain secret, how would we know how to change, what to change?
There is enough dishonesty in the world. Would it not be better to know about the disease, than to suppress, to control, to remain oblivious, only to find that it worsens? Who would we be able to trust to police and govern our speech? Is there anyone who can be so beyond reproach?
Lack of empathy, respect, and love, is at the root of the problem. If each person made it a priority to identify with what makes other people similar to themselves, and to care, and cultivate that attitude, then “freedom” would never be something with the power to hurt others.
Some great thoughts there, T, thanks.