Longrider

Following on from my discussion about Anjem Choudary, I notice that I have drawn some interesting comment. Hardly surprising, of course, this is a contentious issue. However, what struck me was this statement:

All of which leaves me asking – what’s so great about free speech?

Seriously, what’s the point? Why do we rate it so highly? It comes down to one of two reasons – it produces some end that we find desirable, or it’s just an end in itself – it’s good to have free speech because free speech is good, regardless of whether it actually benefits anybody.

Oh my word… Where to start?

I don’t know how old Andrew R is, but I’m guessing not old enough to have someone close who lived through the second world war, or old enough to remember the cold war. That noise you hear is the whirring in the graves of those forebears who gave their lives for the freedom of speech we enjoy – that which has not been eroded by this egregious government. My grandfather was a merchant seaman, risking his life on the convoys (indeed, he died young as a consequence of being torpedoed) to keep this island nation free from a regime that most certainly did not allow free speech.

During the early eighties, I travelled to Eastern Europe. There, I met Poles, East Germans, Hungarians and Czechs. All envied the liberty we enjoyed in the West. But, perhaps, the most noticeable trait they all shared was the care with which they couched their words, just in case someone was listening and might report them. The Eastern Bloc did not allow freedom of speech either.

A state that does not allow freedom of speech, is a state that is willing to stifle dissent. That is why it is so important. That is why we rate it so highly. Whether the speech actually benefits anyone is irrelevant – it is the principle that matters. The right of the individual to speak his mind wherever and whenever he desires without hindrance by the state. I don’t give a flying fig whether Choudary’s speech benefits anyone. What matters is that he may speak. That ensures my right to speak. That is why I will support absolutely his right to do so.

Anyone who has bothered to note what happened to the people of Europe during the turbulent middle years of the twentieth century understands this. It is a lesson I thought we had learned. Unfortunately, a younger generation that has never had to fight for such liberties – or known those who have – seems happy to treat this liberty glibly and ask asinine questions such as the above.

Andrew is arguing that Andrem Choudary’s free speech is, somehow, not delivering something of value, which is probably true, but that’s besides the point.

So fine – we value free speech because it creates the kind of society we want to live in. It’s the cornerstone of the kind of society we want, in fact. Until it isn’t. If we’re supporting free speech because it produces results for us then we’re entitled – required, really – to check that it’s actually delivering for us. If it’s not, insisting on it nevertheless is just a little Lawful Stupid.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Andrem Choudary’s freedom of speech is my freedom of speech and it is your freedom of speech. We cannot decide that because it is not delivering a desired outcome, that we should not allow it – or, more specifically, the state should not allow it.

Now, I acknowledge that there is a public order question to consider as some have mentioned. Acknowledge, but not agree. It is not up to the state to decide for us what we say and where we say it. Also, the idea that we should stop something because of what other people might do is risible. We already have too much law that does just that. If people break the law, prosecute them. To presume that they might just because some nutjob wants to march through a sensitive area is taking the precautionary principle to absurdity – as well as handing him a propaganda coup on a plate.

Andrew then goes on to compound this with the usual canard trotted out each time this subject crops up:

The well-worn example is that you don’t have the freedom to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, because the advantages of sticking with the principle of free speech are outweighed by the disadvantages of panicky mob death.

Ooooh Gawd, pleeease! I really do wish I had a quid for every time someone regurgitated this idiotic cack. Of course we have the freedom to shout “Fire!” in a crowded room. There may be a fire, after all. Secondly, people do not do so if there is not a fire because to do so would be stupid. And, if someone did, the owner of the premises would quite rightly eject them and not allow them back in. They could, should they so wish, sue the pants off the offender for damages. All of which brings me to the primary reason that this allegory is unadulterated claptrap; personal restraint is not the same thing as the state deciding what may or may not be said. It is a non sequitur.

The fire in a crowded room canard is claptrap. It always was claptrap, it always will be claptrap and repeating it ad nauseum as if it is some sort of trump card when freedom of speech is discussed does not diminish its claptrappiness – quite the opposite; it makes you look as foolish and ill-informed as the half-wits who trot out the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” line every time ID cards are discussed.

So, can we not do the fire in a crowded room argument, please? It didn’t wash its face the first time it was uttered it, still doesn’t and it never will. So, after that little rant… Andrew asks if the fire in a crowded room principle applies to Choudary.

I wonder if that has any applicability to a anti-troops march through Wooton Bassett?

No.

Finally, ending where Andrew starts with his D&D Paladin analogy; it doesn’t hold up. By allowing freedom of speech, we do not end up with lawful stupid, because we do not hand anyone a tactical advantage. Allowing Choudary to have his march – irrespective of the outcomes – will expose him for what he is. That’s the point after all.

—————————————

Edit: Something that went through my mind, but I didn’t make clear at the time of writing is the where issue. The streets of Wootton Bassett are public roads. If they were privately owned, the owner would – like the guy with the crowded room – have the perfect right to say “not on my property” and I’d support that fully.

—————————————

Update: I nearly forgot… We do have a timely contemporary example of what happens when the state does not allow freedom of speech. Over the Christmas period, a Chinese dissident was gaoled for 11 years. Presumably what he said didn’t add value…