Wither Free Speech?
Sigh. Free speech is a topic near and dear my heart. I was raised in a rather… spirited home where discussions of politics are frequent—for good or ill. I attended journalism school for my degree where the First Amendment was an entire semester’s class and a frequent guest and contributor to discussions in every other class. Now that I work in advertising and blog in my spare time, I tend to exercise a lot of speech.
I’m an American even if I am an ex-pat. I don’t know all the rules and regulations of other countries, but I do firmly believe that free speech should be the basis of them. The founding fathers of America weren’t idiots. The First Amendment came first for a reason, and that is that it guarantees all that follows. I also believe that is why the 2nd Amendment concerns citizens arming themselves; the old colloquialism about the soap box before the ammo box seems appropriate.
Now none of that should be taken as my being a militia member/compound dwelling wacko. I might be a wacko, but I live in London. The most dangerous thing I have access to is a kitchen knife I struggle to slice cheese with.
The impetus of this post is not only that my off-handed post regarding Scientology and free speech is my most commented one, but also that I see worrying trends.
Mention freedom of speech and you’ll seldom, if ever, get someone to say that they are against it. So why is it so under threat? While no one is against Free Speech, per se, mention a specific topic/idea/opinion and that result very well might change.
Canada is struggling at the moment trying to reconcile free speech and human rights. Whatever anyone may think of the writing in question, the fact that this is before a tribunal is both absurd and terrifying. Free speech is a human right; arguably it is the principle human right. The Tiananmen Square atrocity didn’t happen because a bunch of college kids got together but rather because of what they said.
I’ve already mentioned Britain in my Scientology is a cult, scam and con post. Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. I suspect there is more to this story than just this article, but the lack of discussion reinforces rather than negates the point.
The rest of Europe probably fares worse. Brigitte Bardot has been found guilty in France of saying disparaging comments about Muslims. An Austrian holocaust denier is in jail because he denied the holocaust. Of course I think he’s an idiot, but he should have the freedom to be an idiot and say idiotic things.
Denmark has been pissing off fanatics fairly regularly now. I admire the Danes determination not to cave in to those who seek to decide what can or can’t be said. I just wish that determination extended further as the recent bombing of their embassies has led to hand wringing about whether it should have been said at all. More perversely speech is blamed as a catalyst for riots.
Sadly, my country has its own issues with free speech even given the First Amendment. Kids are suspended from school for exercising their right, and the Supreme Court faces no shortage of cases regarding free speech. I personally find the accepted distinction between commercial speech and regular speech distasteful. If Ben and Jerry’s opines about bovine growth hormone on its ice cream cartons, is this political? Is this commercial? Who draws that arbitrary line and where?
Of course the picture turns even bleaker when we cast our gaze to the rest of the world. One can find many egregious examples of repression of free speech in the Middle East, Asia, South America, the Caribbean, Russia and Eastern Europe.
There are easy examples to find of free speech being under the heel of one jackboot or another on any given day. My concern is that those who are supposed to be the bastions of liberty and free speech are beginning to acquiesce to its suppression. And for what? What will denying our basic right to the expression of what we believe achieve?
In the spirit of free speech, I welcome all comments. All negative comments/fanatical reprisals should be directed to that hippy with the bumper sticker proclaiming he might not like my views but will die to allow me to express them.
related articles
- Sure, Make It Exciting After I Leave (August 29th, 2008)
- Iran, Get with the Times. C’mon. Seriously. (July 12th, 2008)
- The Iranian Threat: Photoshop (July 10th, 2008)
- Careful With Your XBOX Live Gamertag (June 17th, 2008)
- In Small Bills, Please (May 2nd, 2008)
June 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
On the theoretical level, I agree with you part and parcel. In practice, though, I can think of myriad of examples when an offensive exercise of free speech deserves some sort of comeuppance. Say, I am with my kid at a sporting event, and a mildly-inebriated lout in the row behind heckles the opposing team at 180 F-words a minute. When I politely ask him to tone it done because a child is present, he curses me at the tune of “It’s a free country”. He is, of course, just exercising his First Amendment right…
The question is, Is it possible to draw a clean line where an exercise of freedom of expression becomes pure offense? Different people have different levels of tolerance, but when it comes to matters of faith, that task can never be accomplished. A First Amendment purist would use that as an argument that free speech should never be regulated, no matter what the subject or the content. There will, however, be many who’d try. And that’s the world we live in.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
… tone it down… duh!
June 6th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I’m sure the American founding fathers meant “political” speech, not merely license to spew abuse, but it’s a fine question of where to draw the line. Usually, I think, the error should be made on the side of speech; there isn’t a right not to be offended. On the other hand so much behavior that has little to do with coherent speech claims the freedom today (for example, nude table dancing and the inebriated lout) that many people are ready to chuck it. Then there are examples like neo-Nazis wanting to parade through a Jewish neighborhood. I imagine (and hope) the cops who uphold their right to assemble and speak detest every minute of enforcing the freedom. But short of speech that poses an immediate or very imminent harm, speech must be allowed. Now does the danger of being beaten up by hostile listeners fit that category? I don’t think so; that’s an excuse for stifling speech.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Terro, I disagree with a bit of what you said. I’m not of the opinion that the founding fathers were infallible, just that they were incredibly clever mortals. If they had only meant ‘political’ speech, I’m sure that would have been stated.
Remember, Franklin made a living off of advertising and Jefferson has the famous quote of only reading adverts as they had the only truth in the newspaper. I’m quite sure they weren’t drawing any distinctions.
Other than that quibble, I do agree with you.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Well, once again, this comes down to the issue of freedom of expression, without inciting hatred. I think this is the principle behind founding fathers constitution. This principle, in our time, is becoming increasingly difficult to administer, without falling foul of vox pop liberalism. By all means express your disdain, but by no means disparage another persons opinion.. unless they deny you the same rights.
By the way, nice of you to recognize those infallible English mortals. Have you been to Franklin’s home yet?
June 8th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Ok, Ok, I was joking about infallible. Genius is good enough.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Nice article. I am not American too. This post is new knowledge for me.
Lets see, how much I can learn from you.
Thanks.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Holocaust Denial is a topic I’ve hit on my blog a few times as well.
The laws here in Germany cover this topic as “incitement”. The German word is “volksverhetzung”, and as incitement goes the old nazi salutes and such do a remarkable job of inciting violence and a culture where that violence against foreigners is acceptable.
Please consider this recent article from
Spiegel.de
Spiegel is the German word for mirror. For those of us here in Germany, this isn’t a matter of free speech but rather a matter of containing violence and other unacceptable behavior.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I’m not very tuned in on freedom for commercial speech. I’ve always regarded commercial speech “with a grain of salt”: caveat emptor. But I don’t think it’s the government’s role to protect us against snake oil salesmen. That’s an excuse for needless regulation. I remember–hazily–a story about Ben Franklin on a sign to advertise fish. (This may be myth rather than truth.) In any case, seeing a sign that said “Fresh fish for sale,” Franklin said that of course the fish is fresh; who would buy otherwise? Of course it’s for sale, who would give it away? Therefore, the sign should read simply “Fish.”
Personally, I read some ads for information and notice more that are humorous or perhaps visually striking. I guess I am shallow enough to regard the world of advertising as very close to entertainment. Otherwise I’m not much interested. The kind of information that you provided on Islay single malt scotch was interesting and informative, but not what would go into a typical ad. It would be interesting to imagine how one might advertise one of these whiskies. I loved the Absolut vodka ads even though I hate vodka.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I guess I am shallow enough to regard the world of advertising as very close to entertainment. Otherwise I’m not much interested. The kind of information that you provided on Islay single malt scotch was interesting and informative, but not what would go into a typical ad. It would be interesting to imagine how one might advertise one of these whiskies. I loved the Absolut vodka ads even though I hate vodka.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I agreed that that the founder fathers were talking about political speech. How would they know that 100+ years would go by to a time where everyone was dropping F-bombs left and right.
There is a matter of respecting others that should be kept in mind whenever we show our faces in public society. I’m a little on the fence about this, though. I admit there have been times where I was so mad at the world I didn’t give a frack who heard me shouting obscenities. Use proper judgment is all I have to say.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am
at the risk of sounding a bit off-key, I think that we cannot just assume free speech to a right. Up until the last couple of centuries(i may be wrong) it didnt really exist as even a concept.
I would suggest that the right of free speech is young and still being defined, and that means it needs to be fought for.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
In response “Wither Free Speech” I must say that free speech must be allowed. I am married to a muslim and I am a christian, I have never criticized Islam or tried to convert any Muslim to Christianity although I have been criticized and even seen my religion laughed at. And have been told that Islam is coming and will takeover the earth. I have many beautiful silk scarfs but I will never cover hair.
Free Speech means we will never be controlled and thank goodness my husband believes that one should never interfere with another’s religious, political or racial beliefs.
Free speach forever.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Well, i use to believe in free speech, but after a few incidents including the lawsuit over the beef comment Oprah made a few years ago now i’m not to sure about free speech in America..lol.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:51 am
There is not much difference in terms of free speech, if different countries or regions are compared together.