Freedom of Speech Debate

[jebus]

Leading off from the Oxford Union inviting Holocaust denier, David Irving (the guy who was jailed in Austria for this) and BNP Leader, Nick Griffin, to debate free speech, the media and Israel in general, and the subsequent protests by the Oxford students and the far left, we may as well have a topic on free speech, does it exist, should limits be set on it etc. Okay? Go!

Anyway I'm very much of the opinion that there is no gray area in free speech, either people are allowed to say whatever they want, or they aren't. If someone says something completely ridiculous, be it homophobic, racist, whatever, it is far easier to show them on a stage as the idiots that they are than it is by banning them and giving credence to their 'the left is out to get us' theory. I didn't see it, but I read today that Le Pen, the far right French politician, was shown up in a live debate on French TV last month. Apparantly he started in on his Immigrants Are the Root of All Evil topic and was picked apart quite easily by whoever it was that was debating with him. That's the way to deal with the BNP and their like in my opinion, not resorting to censorship and placard waving outside whatever building

[Lim till i die]

Well said that man

[pineapple stu]

We all have a right to free speech.

But people ignore the fact that with rights come obligations to use them properly. I can call you a paedo and say it's free speech, but I'd be sued for libel (or slander, whichever it is), and quite rightly so. You can't draw a line as to what you can say or what you can't say - you have to take it on a case by case basis.

[Student Mullet]

My favourite ever letter to the newspaper was on this very topic after a debate in UCD was attacked;

Madam,
The UCD students shouting "No free speech for fascists" should be commended for fully explaining the meaning of the word 'oxymoronic'.

[Student Mullet]

We all have a right to free speech.

But people ignore the fact that with rights come obligations to use them properly. I can call you a paedo and say it's free speech, but I'd be sued for libel (or slander, whichever it is), and quite rightly so. You can't draw a line as to what you can say or what you can't say - you have to take it on a case by case basis.

But calling someone a paedo is a matter of evidence, you either have proof of your statement or you don't. That's very different from having an officially sanctioned version of history.

[jebus]

We all have a right to free speech.

But people ignore the fact that with rights come obligations to use them properly. I can call you a paedo and say it's free speech, but I'd be sued for libel (or slander, whichever it is), and quite rightly so. You can't draw a line as to what you can say or what you can't say - you have to take it on a case by case basis.

Personally I wouldn't care less what you called me, I'd challenge to produce proof that I'm a paedo, and once you couldn't you'd instantly be dismissed as another crackpot tosser.

[osarusan]

If someone says something completely ridiculous, be it homophobic, racist, whatever, it is far easier to show them on a stage as the idiots that they are than it is by banning them

I'd challenge to produce proof that I'm a paedo, and once you couldn't you'd instantly be dismissed as another crackpot tosser.

But you are relying on the intelligence of the people to realise that the person is a crackpot/racist etc.

History has shown that large groups of people can be easily swayed by such baseless rhetoric, sometimes with tragic consequences.

How do you feel about the crime called "incitement to violence"? Do you see any conflict between that law and free speech?

[jebus]

But you are relying on the intelligence of the people to realise that the person is a crackpot/racist etc.

History has shown that large groups of people can be easily swayed by such baseless rhetoric, sometimes with tragic consequences.

How do you feel about the crime called "incitement to violence"? Do you see any conflict between that law and free speech?

If history will repeat itself then history will repeat itself. I feel that by not providing people like the BNP a platform you are actually making them a more attractive group to people who feel sidelined by society, which in general is where the numbers that will be swayed come from. If you completely make an idiot out of someone like Nick Griffin on a national stage, then the whole party and it's ideal view of society becomes a running joke, look what happened when Killroy was allowed back on the Beeb for a debate for that.

As for an incitement to violence, well again, if the majority view someone telling them that Jews/Muslims/etc. are whats wrong with the world today and people take that as a green light to verbally or physically abuse these people, then I would have to say that that side of the person's character was already in them, and would have come out regardless of whether they hear these speeches or not, so on that basis I would still argue that it would be better to allow these groups to speak, and to then humiliate them, as a way of perhaps getting through to their would be followers

[dcfcsteve]

This was a hot topic 10 years when I was President of my Students Union and involved in NUS. It was a hot issue 10 years before then, and it still will be ten years from now.

I belive in free speech, and am a liberal to the core. But I am uneasy with the concept of giving anyone a platform, regardless of their aims or beliefs.

I understand the premise behind it - that any view sufficiently abhorrent, absurd etc will be exposed as such if it is aired and then tackled openly.

However - that only really works in an ideal world. The sad truth of life is that there are people who are incapable or more importantly unwilling to scrutinise some views to the extent that proponents of the 'free speech/open platform' lobby would like. There are people who would get sucked-in by fascist rhetoric were it to be aired - particularly if it is well presented. That is not me speculating about the nature of humanity - the history of Western Europe in the 20th Century in Germany, Spain, Italy, England, Ireland and elsewhere has shown that there are plenty of people willing to suspend intelligent critique and/or willing to be be fuelled by inner mob prejudices, or bouyed along by stirring orators.

If you give the BNP an open platform, the simple fact of life is that their message will seed and flower in certain sections of society. Regardless of how well you argue against their vews, you canb be certain that that will happen.

So the question therefore is do we grant 'free speech' to those with abhorent views, who are unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come with free speech, and in the knowledge that no matter how well their views are countered there will be some who get sucked-in by them ? In other words, do we accept that a downside of complete free speech is the fuelling and growth of views and beliefs that are abhorrent and themselves anti-free speech (with the possible end point of the various fascist regimes and movements we had across Europe in the last century).

Or do we believe, as Pineapple Stu said, that with 'freedom' there also comes 'responsibility'. That those unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities should therefore be denied that freedom (much the same way as physical freedom is denied to physical criminals). And also that that the way to stop abhorrent views propogating in the first place is to deny them the oxygen of publicity ?

If you follow and accept the above arguement, the next big question is : how do we determine what is 'abhorrent' and should therefore be met with a 'no platform' policy ? This is a difficult one. The underlying principle I would use is this - the groups like BNP, holocaust deniers etc who argue in-favour of their free speech are almost always groups who advocate some form of 'hate'. Ironically, they would also deny free speech to others if they had the ability and influence to do so.

So denying a platform to these groups could be determined on the basis of whether otr not they propogate 'hate' against sections of the community, and whether ot not the natural conclusion of their beliefs would involve supression and/or ill treatment of other legitimate groups in society. As an aside, a lot of Western nations have laws against 'hate crimes' anyway - including verbal attack/incitement.

I accept it's a difficult area to define, and don't claim to have the answer, but I really don't feel comfortable with the woolly idealistic notion that you can argue down anything anyone says - because there will always be people who will buy-in to the most abhorent message should they be exposed to it.

Finally - as an aside. If we're saying it's ok to allow fascists, rascists, hoomophobes etc to air and propogate their views in public - so long as we can argue against them - should we also openly tolerate paedophiles - again, so that we can point out the error of their ways publically ?

[Student Mullet]

Finally - as an aside. If we're saying it's ok to allow fascists, rascists, hoomophobes etc to air and propogate their views in public - so long as we can argue against them - should we also openly tolerate paedophiles - again, so that we can point out the error of their ways publically ?

Do you mean should we tolerate pedophiles speaking about pedophilia or practicing it?

[osarusan]

Do you mean should we tolerate pedophiles speaking about pedophilia or practicing it?

Jebus' arguement it that by allowing fascists/homopobes/racists etc a public platform, we also create a platform where their views can be shown up as ludicrous and untenable to the general public, thus actually helping to diminish the influence of those who hold such ludicrous views.

dcfcsteve's opinion is-

So the question therefore is do we grant 'free speech' to those with abhorrent views? ...........In other words, do we accept that a downside of complete free speech is the fuelling and growth of views and beliefs that are abhorrent.

He's saying, I think, that if you support total free speech, then an unfortunate consequence is that a paedophile, a member of NAMBLA, for example, has much right to be heard as anybody else, based on the arguement that we also get an opportunity to criticise that view-

If we're saying it's ok to allow fascists, rascists, hoomophobes etc to air and propogate their views in public - so long as we can argue against them - should we also openly tolerate paedophiles - again, so that we can point out the error of their ways publically ?

Finally, here is a quote from George Orwell, entitled The freedom of the Press, written concerning the reluctance of many publishers to publish his novel Animal Farm.

The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular — however foolish, even — entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say ‘Yes’. But give it a concrete shape, and ask, ‘How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?’, and the answer more often than not will be ‘No’, In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses. Now, when one demands liberty of speech and of the press, one is not demanding absolute liberty. There always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg [sic] said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way.

[Macy]

People should have the right to free speech. However, that doesn't mean the Oxford Union (or the Trinity equivalent or whoever) is obliged to give them a platform to spout their bile.

Free speech also gives the people that find their views offensive the opportunity to protest, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Nothing wrong with protesting against racist scum, and nothing wrong with protesting against tossers attempting to be controversial who are giving them a platform.

[Angus]

Hard to disagree with most of this but why are we, as a country, obsessed with what our rights are or are not ?

Most of the drivel that goes for public debate in Ireland is centred around somebody's claim to a "right" to do or say something.

Yes, legally, we have a right to free speech but the reality is you do not have a right to gratuously offend, slander, cause civil unrest etc. I have no formal legal training and cannot comment on how these various things are balanced but I know this (and with all respect to any lawyers here) - once conversations like this get into the hands of lawyers, we move further away from the solution.

Our books of laws are by and large very well written and by and large well observed and administered but there are exceptions. Some of the smartest people I have ever met are lawyers but unfortunately it is in those gray areas where lawyers are frequently asked to intervene and it becomes a legal discussion as opposed to a factual one.

Now, I have the right to stand in the middle of the Falls Road / Shankill Road with a Rangers / Celtic jersey on and sing the Sash / A Nation Once Again or to stand in the middle of Jerusalem and sing a homage to Bin Laden but not only would those actions be unwise, they would be gratuously and deliberately offensive and purely and utterly designed for the purpose of making an unnecessary legalistic point.

The Free Speech debate is an extremely important one but if it ever gets hijecked (and it has not been in this forum) by those who simply want to make legalistic points, it becomes invalid.

[superfrank]

Free speech for all. I agree with jebus points on attacking people's beliefs (if you disagree with them) with debate, rather then censoring them.

[kingdom hoop]

Good post Angus. As he says, people get carried away with their rights and forget about the constraints on those rights. People think 'oh, free speech, I can say what I like.' No, no you can't.

The right to free speech is of course enshrined in legal canons. Rightfully so. But there are numerous other provisions that tend to be lost in its long shadow. (such as incitement to hatred, and conspiracy to corrupt public morals) They deal with the ambiguity that is the interpretation of words/conduct so they are very difficult to prove, and because they are hard to prove, the court process is expensive, and often there is no definable injured party, cumulatively means that this is not an area that the legal domain can police effectively, but is left to carry the can when morality is ambushed by nincompoops.

To the best of my (reasonable) memory only two cases have ever been taken in Ireland under the incitement to hatred Act. That would seem disproportionately low to the amount of abuse/threats/insults etc that happen daily. Just for the sake of , one case was successful. That was a case involving a Dublin Bus driver who called an African passenger a 'nig-nog' and told him to go back to his own country. The case that lost involved a Mayo politician who at a Western Health Board meeting likened travellers to 'pedigree dogs' - must've been the pedigree comment that saved him.

All in all, the law is definitely inadequate, and only comes into play after the offending behaviour. It doesn't promote good behaviour in any way. I can't see a resolution to that fact unless there is specific demarcation of certain issues that can never be discussed in public. That might be possible (surely we could outlaw some things??) but to be fully effective it would need to apply to the internet as well though, so obviously we'll never totally remove the soapbox for immorality.

[pineapple stu]

But calling someone a paedo is a matter of evidence, you either have proof of your statement or you don't. That's very different from having an officially sanctioned version of history.

Personally I wouldn't care less what you called me, I'd challenge to produce proof that I'm a paedo, and once you couldn't you'd instantly be dismissed as another crackpot tosser.

Probably an extreme example on my part, but still. You could indeed dismiss me as a crackpot (in this hypothetical example, of course!), but for that to work on a large scale requires people in general to be intelligent. That doesn't really seem to be the case from my experience. You could dismiss me as a crackpot, but people in general probably wouldn't if I made enough noise about it. How often do you see something completely false accepted as truth because people couldn't be bothered checking to see if it's true or not? Just look at Americans' views on the war in Iraq as an example to see how people are quite happy to believe a lie.

In your example above, it's possible for extreme right wingers to express views at a debate, have them debunked completely and yet have a good amount of people come away with the debunked stuff in their minds as fact.

I agree with the Orwell passage quoted there - free speech, with a responsibility to cop the f*** on when using it.

[Calcio Jack]

We had a great example of free speech in the Dail this week... Mary Harney told everyone what a great Minister of Health she is and all the great things she's done for the plain people of Ireland... and what do you know, she was so convincing that her colleagues gave her a resounding vote of confidence...tis a great thing this 'free speech'

[John83]

...there are numerous other provisions that tend to be lost in its long shadow. (such as incitement to hatred, and conspiracy to corrupt public morals)...

Tell me about that last one please? Would, to pick a topic, promoting equal rights for homosexuals be covered? Speaking against the institution of marriage? Abortion? What are the public morals? There are plenty of controversial topics now that were long kept out of public discourse because they were immoral. This is the problem with restricting free speech based on morality.

Angus, it matters not a whit while it works. It's when it fails that we're screwed.

[pete]

I think in this situation it was correct to have the debate. Free Speech can exist within the boundaries of libel laws. You can say something in a debate which would offensive if said face to face.

Sometime I think opposition to some viewpoints is used as an excuse to prevent free speech.

Recent example of a couple of academics recently wrote a book on US-Israeli policy lobbying. In the US critics tried to discredit calling it anti-Semitic which if we did not have free speech would be used to ban the book.

Book investigating Israeli lobby in the US

[dcfcsteve]

Now, I have the right to stand in the middle of the Falls Road / Shankill Road with a Rangers / Celtic jersey on and sing the Sash / A Nation Once Again or to stand in the middle of Jerusalem and sing a homage to Bin Laden but not only would those actions be unwise, they would be gratuously and deliberately offensive and purely and utterly designed for the purpose of making an unnecessary legalistic point.

I'm not sure you would be able to do the above on the Shankhill/Falls, for example. You'd probably be cautioned/arrested for breach of the peace at the leats, if not for incitement. I'm sure any judge in the land would support the police in that if you took action.

So in reality there are plenty of sensible limits on free speech already in-place, or that the police can easily enforce.