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…
I’d ask what they teach them nowadays in debating lessons. But then I realise that they probably don’t have those anymore…
.-= My last blog ..This Is The Punishment That Awaits All Traitors… =-.
Well, given that our legislature is such a piss-poor example, should we be surprised?
(Sound of jaw hitting desk, recovers) In the words of the late, great Eric Morecambe; “That boy’s a fool.”
I think its simpler* than that.
If we are going to curtail freedom of speech then someone has to decide what can and can’t be said and done. You would like to think it will be are are meek, mild and wise and they will use it benignly for the good of man.
However history tells us that this amount of power always attracts the sort of people who will use it to further their own power and control at the expense of the liberty and wealth of the rest of us. And these people are a lot stronger and already more powerful than those you think would get the job.
*Well I would, wouldn’t I 🙂
.-= My last blog ..The next mass panic: Q-fever? =-.
The point of using words is to persuade, and sometimes to incite. The expression of opinions, however obnoxious to others, should not be prohibited in a self-professedly free society. But free speech should be used responsibly, and at one’s own peril. Inflammatory speech which directly results in violence has always rightly been subject to prosecution. But a clear line has to be draw between mere speech and speech intended to result in a breach of the peace.
That is why – although I belong to a minority whose members are even now frequently the subject of hateful abuse and quite often of physical violence – I strongly oppose the so-called ‘hate speech’ laws introduced by this mind-controlling government. In the 1970s, when I was active in the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty), I always argued strongly against, and usually helped to defeat, the annual “no platform for racists and fascists” motions brought forward by the knee-jerk Left. Anyone should be allowed to speak – but the moment their words result in violence they should be charged with incitement.
Precious drops of freedom – the right to tell it as it is.
.-= My last blog ..Kanata =-.
Pardon my language, but that guy is a total c***. I decided to take his argument to task, and he accused me of ‘dumping spam’ on his blog.
What a wanker he is.
I noticed that. Very odd…
I suspect, from what he is saying, that he is trying to argue the precautionary principle on the basis of public order. Fair enough if that is the point being made, as Freeborn John has in the link above. I don’t agree with it, but it’s a point of view. However, any argument that uses “but” when discussing freedom of speech means that the person making the argument does not believe in freedom of speech no matter how much they protest to the contrary. There is no “but”.
Okay, first of all:
Trooper, I’m sorry, I was expressing myself badly. Someone else did spam me, so the line at the end of my last post was meant to be aimed at them, not you. But I should have made that clearer.
That said, the sad truth is that, as with any important right, there are indeed “buts” to freedom of speech. There are some examples which are so obvious they almost pass unnoticed:
I have freedom of speech, but I’m not free to make up lies about you and spread them.
I have freedom of speech, but I can’t tell an angry mob that it would be a better world if someone burnt down your house – even if that were my honest opinion.
And as you yourself point out, my freedom of speech is entirely subservient to your right to property – I have no right to bring my speech into your house, or anywhere else a private owner deems it unwelcome. That is in fact a pretty enormous restriction on my freedom of speech, and an entirely appropriate one.
Oh, and ripped from the headlines – I have freedom of speech but I can’t:
“us[e] threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.”
Genuine question – do you believe those guys are being oppressed by the state, or treated appropriately?
.-= My last blog ..Lawful Stupid =-.
The laws regarding libel and slander are not a “but” in the context of free speech. They allow recompense should you lie and defame someone. This is implicitly accepted by all proponents of free speech. Libel and slander cause harm, therefore there is law to deal with it.
What we are talking about here is the state deciding what opinions are acceptable or not and whether they may be voiced.
We should have the absolute right to state the truth. We should have the absolute right to voice our opinions without the state deciding that they are not acceptable.
There is a clear difference between this and libel, slander or incitement to violence – all of which cause actual harm and are adequately covered by the rule of law.
This, frankly, is risible nonsense and is abused by those who see offence as something that the state should protect them from. Free speech means the right to insult, ridicule and offend. Providing the line into incitement is not crossed, this should not be a matter for the law.
The property owner restricting speech on his property is not a restriction of freedom of speech – although people frequently think so. When we talk about freedom of speech, we are talking of the state making restrictions. If a property owner decides that he doesn’t like what I am saying – I can go elsewhere and say it. I can withdraw my custom and advise others, should I so wish (I’ve done just that in the past). If the state decides it doesn’t like what I am saying, I cannot go elsewhere, nor can I take away my custom. The property owner is not going to prosecute me, the state can. The property owner will not gaol me, the state can. You see the difference?
Finally – there is no point trying to communicate with spammers. Just delete, ban and move on.
“This is implicitly accepted by all proponents of free speech.”
That’s kind of my point – all proponents of free speech accept that in fact there are limits on it, based on the fact that speech can do harm to others.
As for this, I tried and failed to embed this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/11/luton-guilty-soldiers-baby-killers
from which I quoted the “likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress line. The full quote is:
Five Muslim men accused of yelling abuse at British soldiers and calling them rapists, murderers and baby killers during a homecoming parade have been found guilty of a public order offence… [the men] were convicted at Luton magistrates court today of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Is this an abuse by the state?
.-= My last blog ..Lawful Stupid =-.
It simply doesn’t apply here. Libel is an actionable tort. Common law places a duty on all of us not to cause harm to our neighbours. So telling lies that defame, cause harm, just as, for example, damaging our neighbour’s property. It is not a free speech issue as it does not involve telling the truth, fair comment or expressing a genuinely held opinion stifled by the state – which is a free speech issue.
I wondered what happened to that.
Yes. They were expressing an opinion. That they were insulting and offensive is neither here nor there. People – and the police, quite frankly, need to get a grip and grow a pair. I mean likely to cause… FFS! Sticks and stones and all that…
Andrew,
I accept your apology, and withdraw my comment.
As for the case in point, I totally agree with Longrider.
.-= My last blog .."One of the greatest medical scandals of the century" =-.