This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we are going to discuss free speech.
The original topic was hate versus free speech, but I thought it would be interesting to expand it to a more general discussion about how to set limits to free speech.
Free speech is something that is valued as a foundation to a free society. However, when we have to coexists with other beings who also claim their right to their freedom, where do we set the compromise limit of one's freedom to express versus another's freedom to object or to not even want to hear it ?
One limitation often cited is that we should not be free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater for fear of creating a stampede to the exits by the crowd.
Does this mean that our freedom of expression should be curtailed by the consequence of what it may cause?
Should we therefore not speak out against the opinion of a prominent social leader because his leadership is so important to society that discrediting him will cause too much disruption and real damage to society? A utilitarian approach to the issue?
We are all familiar with the accepted hate speech from people who doubt the existence of the holocaust and what happened to the Jews in the second world war.
But what about the news last week that there is talk in Japan about doubts if the massive killing of civilians in Nanking in China in the second world war really happened? The Chinese government objected. But should doubts be raised to start with ?
Perhaps we can say that cases like these are easily judged because of the overwhelming evidence of the number of people killed.
But what about historical events that are more open to interpretation and subject to the moral and values of those times? Is it valid to raise questions of interpretation ? or possible motives of the day that no one is so sure of today?
Are the Japanese solders who died in the second world war heroes to be honored annually by Japan's head of state? Is it Japan's freedom to do so ?
What about omission.
Are historians free to omit inconvenient truths ? Is omission a fundamental right? Or is it an obligation and pillar of free discussion? Should children's history books be less favorable to the state?
Another example is the popular saying that "my freedom to swing my fist stops just before it hits your chin." That is certainly true physically but what about the threat manifested by the swinging of the fist, should that freedom be curtailed as a mental threat that can be every bit as damaging as physical assault?
Where is the balance between libel laws and a journalist's claim to freedom of the press? What level of proof is required before something can be published?
Can we be free without limits? How many limits can we impose before we are no longer free?
Who gets to set the line and how?
Looking forward to the discussion on Wednesday.
In our Wednesday Feb 29 discussion of free speech Rafi recalled the case of the Westboro Baptist church as an example of unacceptable exercise of speech. I [Dan] thought the despicable behavior would have simply vanished with the fading of main stream media attention.
ReplyDeleteNow a March 2 story in the Christian Science Monitor has the latest development.
While clearly a blatant and offensive violation of societal norms as evidenced by the jury decision against the church, the US Supreme Court ruled it was not illegal. Perhaps this is a clear example of morally and ethically unacceptable speech remaining within legal bounds.
"In an important reaffirmation of free speech principles, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that noxious, highly offensive protests conducted outside solemn military funerals are protected by the First Amendment when the protests take place in public and address matters of public concern.
"The high court ruled 8 to 1 that members of the Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church are entitled to stage their controversial antigay protests even when they cause substantial injury to family members and others attending the funeral of a loved one."
See the story at
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0302/Supreme-Court-hurtful-speech-of-Westboro-Baptist-Church-is-protected
Dan
Thanks Dan.
DeleteI note from the article in your link that the supreme court judge said that as a nation, the US has chosen to rank free speech over the effect of hurtful comments to the victims in order not to stifle dissent and discussion.
It illustrates the dilemma of the difference of opinions and value systems of groups that disagree and that there is no ultimate arbitrator of what is "right".
Seems like a drift towards the 'anything is possible' in order to protect "free" speech.
No wonder structured societies see free societies as corrupt, individualistic, even uncaring. While the free societies see the structured ones as stifling, herd like, and lack privacy.
There does not seem to be a happy medium.
Didn't Buddha say that the middle way is best after being a prince and an ascetic monk?
But how do we pick the middle or navigate the slippery slope of life without sliding to the bottom or try too hard to be at the top without making any progress along our intended journey in the middle?
Oliver.