Because I am such a (high quality only) news junkie, I
listen to a lot of NPR, PBS, and BBC in-depth analysis shows. The problem this
week is that they have all been about the Charlie Hebdo attack. As a result, I have heard dozens of experts
from all over the world and all over the political spectrum opining about
freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Some of these shows have call-in blocks, so I have also heard a few
dozen “man-on-the-street” thoughts on the topic.
Of course, there has been a wide variety of opinions. There are die hard freedom of expression
extremists who believe that anyone should be able to say anything as long as no
one is physically and directly harmed.
There are “protectionists” who believe we need to prevent anyone from
being offended for (almost) anything, not just to prevent retaliation but for
moral and ethical reasons. The middle
ground, at least in this case, seem to be those who believe that the exception to
free speech should be to prevent offending a set of protected categories such
as race, religion, gender – kind of like the US list of non-discrimination
categories.
I have my own position on this spectrum, but I can respect
that other people might have other views.
I believe that putting hateful speech out in the open is a more
practical and effective way of fighting it.
So it goes beyond just a philosophic belief in freedom. I also worry that excepting expressions that
offend religious beliefs is problematic because where to you draw the line on
what is a religious offense? There are
lots of streams within each religion that seem to have lots of offending
concepts. Do we ban all of these in all
cases, including news, satire, and academic debate?
But with all of that preface, I have a different point to
make today. Even the most well respected
experts seem to mix up government regulation from good manners. They make the claim that when people don’t
use offensive speech because they don’t want to offend their neighbors, that is
somehow a constraint on freedom. Just
the opposite. That is a great example of
this individual exerting his right to freedom of expression by personally
choosing what to say and what not to say.
I would never burn a US flag in protest because I think it is an
ineffective form of protest, not because my freedom is constrained.
If a group of people find the Charlie Hebdo cartoons
offensive, the best thing for them to do is to protest, picket, and try to convince
the public not to purchase the magazine.
That is a form of expression that equally deserves freedom. If the magazine loses its readership, it will
disappear soon enough. They have the right to their freedom of expression, but
not the right to stay in business without any sales. People who are now planning to buy the magazine
as a way of supporting freedom of expression are doing it wrong. Buying the magazine supports the specific
expressions in the magazine, not the freedom itself. Supporting freedom of expression would
require you to go around expressing things you believe in. Or choosing not to express them because you
don’t think they warrant expression.
Posts
