polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection, and are
therefore censored. However, it may be true that the people who commit hate
crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are
likely to have watched pornography, but not necessarily the other way
around, as viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are not incited
to commit anything they otherwise would not do. By exposing pornography,
hate speech and political polemic to society, the government hope to
increase the likelihood that it will be discredited and defeated, rather
than strengthened through persecution. According to American feminist Andrea
Dworkin, in order to restrict pornography it would have to be proven that a
person with no desire to rape or batter females was caused to do so through
exposure to material depicting violence to women.
Therefore, to restrict hate speech, it would have to proven that the
material has caused violence or has harmed an individual’s rights. When tied
in with Feinberg’s stance on hate speech, highlighting the frustration of
the targeted party at not being able to retaliate legitimately, it is
implied that hate speech should be prohibited.
As regards to pornography, Feinberg states that there is no necessary link between pornography and obscenity. The intention of pornography is to cause sexual arousal, whereas something is obscene when it causes repugnance, revulsion and shock.
Pornography can be, but is not necessarily, obscene, which arouses the
question of the morality, or the lack thereof, behind producing such
materials. The simplest, way to understand freedom of speech is as an aspect of liberty in general, as an individual making use of their natural capacity for
thought and expression. Therefore, free speech falls within the traditional
natural rights to life, liberty, and property. But other individuals also
have a right to be secure in their persons and property. Speech violates
this right when it leads to assault or conveys a serious threat of future
violence. Since individual rights exist under the protection of the
community, such speech may also constitute a breach of the public peace, and
may result in criminal liability. At the same time, individuals also have
other rights of personality, some of which may be violated by speech. Speech
can cause injury through emotional distress. It can be argued that severely
abusive speech violates the personality, the same way that offensive assault
violates bodily integrity. Also speech and related forms of conduct can
constitute an invasion of privacy, or the right to maintain the integrity of
one's personal life by preserving the boundary that separates it from
everyone else’s. In a situation like this restriction would be the most
sensible course of action, but in certain scenarios the aggressor may be
unjustly denied their right to freedom of expression.
In order for freedom of expression to function in a society, tolerance must
be employed within the society. This is especially the case regarding
religious beliefs, as if an intellectual view is antithetical to beliefs
held by major religions, debate may ensue. In order to protect the religious
from these views, some might say we should prevent people from saying these
offensive things, but although some views that may be expressed might be
contrary to religious teaching, we must defend the rights of the non-religious within any society too. This is why I believe that religious opinions must not be censored or undermined, but when a religion is connected with violence it is a signal of the minority’s retaliation against suppression. The resulting tension is a product of the government’s original prejudice towards the minority. Speech which may cause offence to a group can be acceptable as it may be merely a matter of the opposing group conveying their opinions, but when harm is caused by a group and its beliefs its freedom of expression must be restricted. According to Mill:
the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member
of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
(1978, 9)
Mill’s harm principle states that the individual should have to tolerate
offence as long as it isn’t harmful or an incitement to harm e.g. invading
ones rights. However, if one cannot speak one’s mind for fear of causing
offence, than surely this means free speech is impossible as there may
always be someone, somewhere, so vehemently against your opinion that it
offends them.
To overcome this, free speech must allow total freedom and any
negative ramifications of this are merely costs of free speech. This idea of
supporting free speech, regardless of how much you disagree with the
argument is best portrayed by the notion associated with the French
philosopher Voltaire:
“I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to
say it”
Many may adopt this viewpoint as their own, but how many would actually die
for their belief in freedom of expression? This is a hard concept to
imagine, especially when thinking of someone dying for the rights of their
opposition.
Governments may start out with a Voltaire sensibility but when this idea
backfires and they are faced with something they find outrageous and
unacceptable, restrictions arise. In order to make free speech equal,
censorship cannot be selectively restrictive. Natural rights theory, a
theory enforcing the basic rights and freedoms of all human beings, suggests
that freedom of speech is limited by the rights of others, and the law may
protect these rights against expression that violates them.
In my opinion the main justification for free speech is that it is necessary
for the pursuit of truth. Knowledge not only advances our personal lives in
relation to the rest of society, it also has the propensity to heighten our
intellectual status and reasoning of the world around us, a notion espoused
by Mill as well as many other theoreticians.
Restriction of this right should not result in the ignorance the masses, as the public have a right to know the existing truths in their lives and times.
This includes children, as I believe that minors should receive information
with fewer restrictions. If a child is enlightened at a younger age they
will have time to formulate their own opinions and allow them to be altered
and shaped as their knowledge of the world grows. Although the adults of the
world are the ones entitled to freedom of expression, with specific opinions
based upon their experience of the world, children deserve to at least be
aware of these opinions and I do not believe that parents have the right to
decide exactly what their children know. However, my opinion may change
after I have become a father, as freedom of expression allows opinion to be
open to debate and susceptible to change. If opinion were restricted and
bottled up their hostility may increase and the holders of these views may
become obdurate and closed to reason.
In conclusion, the restriction of the right to freedom of expression must be
administered sensibly, taking into account whether or not the restriction
will advance and benefit society. I believe that freedom of speech should be
unrestricted unless a specific misuse of it has been proven to be directly
harmful to an individual’s rights.
Incidents causing offence and outrage must be debated and overall
credited as being one of the costs attributed to freedom of expression.
References and bibliography
http://www.genders.org/g28/g28_rights.html - A website offering notes on
human rights.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D1DE.htm - A website
showcasing articles by various journalists
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ - A website explaining the
works of various theoreticians.
Mill, J.S. (1859) On Liberty Ch. 2
Lee, S. (1990) The Cost of Free Speech Ch. 1-11
Feinberg, J. (1973) Social Philosophy Ch. 6