You know what guys? It’s time for another “serious” post... yay?! You know what else guys? The response to the freedom of speech post I wrote scared me. There seemed to be no opposition to the concept whatsoever, but is there any need to oppose it in any way? Of course there is! That’s why I’m going to give a more sustained version of my opinion and hopefully it’ll trigger some more encouraging feedback, not that I was unhappy with your comments before ;).
So why do we have freedom of speech in the first place? One argument is that it's one of our “natural rights”; anyone and everyone should be able to say whatever they want. This explanation doesn’t take into account laws on inciting racial hatred; it’s clearly not a natural right to convince people that coloured people are less than human. Well what other use could this freedom have? It allows different ideas to circulate as well as allowing people’s actions and ideas to be openly questioned and scrutinised. In other words it lays the foundations for political, ideological and social pluralism. It’s always a good idea to have different opinions, it’s what keeps scientists discovering and stops politicians turning into gods on earth. I suppose in turn this could lead to idea of toleration of different views and even a reduction of violence provoked by beliefs. On the other hand it could increase the amount of ideological clashes; too many cooks spoil the broth. This could lead to rather than reduce violence; looking at prime ministers questions, maybe different views doesn’t always produce a pleasant outcome.
I think the right of free speech was developed on the idea that people are rational thinkers. We are quite clearly not so rational, at least not all of us and certainly not all of the time. If we were, then we’d be in a war-free world. We’d be robots, probably communist robots :p. Not all people are educated and we're not all the brightest bulbs, people really are easily swayed. Set one Christian missionary in Nigeria and... whahey! You have a country of Christians, who think some kids are witches. Freedom of speech is potentially very dangerous. Hitler roused the masses through speech, but you’d defend his right to do so wouldn’t you Mr Voltaire?
Now I’m going to quote myself “freedom of speech allows... Ideas to be openly questioned and scrutinised” yet it seemed no one questioned the concept of free speech itself in my earlier post (does that make it useless?or is it ironic...whatever!). Does the idea of allowing others to express different views just mask the fact that there might well be an ideological monopoly already in place? Are we a nation of brain washed liberals? I mean if you met someone who was against the idea of universal suffrage you wouldn’t think twice about branding him as a radical, you’d “defend his right to say it” but his opinion would be worthless. If I were to openly oppose the idea of freedom of speech then my views would be seem as intolerant, I wouldn’t be taken seriously, and my opinion would not count as much as others’. I feel that this is precisely opposes what freedom of speech represents. We should be able to listen to different views (even if intolerant) and take them into consideration, not to unquestioningly obey liberal principles. There’s no point allowing other views to be expressed just to pay no attention to them.
I am well in favour of freedom of speech but I am aware of the many negatives it could produce. I feel the crucial notion cannot be truly understood or valued until its own existence is questioned. I hope you don't mind how I’ve patronized you, the majority of you probably feel that you’ve already thought of what I’ve said and i apologize. But I ask you now, are we a brainwashed nation just like any other fundamentalist country like Iran? Islamic theocracy and social democracy aren’t so different after all, are they :p?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
wdon't say 'coloured people' you fucking racist. :) x
Very interesting and thought-provoking follow-up post, Kavi :).
Right, down to business; you seem to want to be a believer in idealism, do you not? Well yes, the reality is that many extreme views are disregarded as false, without the seizure of the individuals responsible for saying them. Yes, we do allow people to say what they like and not arrest them for it (unlike in other countries, such as Islamist states where criticism of the government, for example, is a betrayal of Allah), but the idea that any diversion away from thinking in a "reasonable" manner is ignored, is, in my view, wrong.
You contradicted yourself somewhat within your article by saying "people really are easily swayed" and then mentioning that "if you met someone who was against the idea of universal suffrage you wouldn’t think twice about branding him as a radical, you’d “defend his right to say it” but his opinion would be worthless". I believe this was unintentional (moreover, I assume that you only meant to classify the proletariat as the suggestible members of the public), but within this, the theory exists; people can be turned around on how they feel on a certain issue. For the better informed, a statement, backed up with decent reasoning would be a minimum requirement (no simple "let's all hate gay people" would suffice with them), and no, they aren't obliged to change their opinions, and it's unlikely to actually happen, but there was a time where treating people below your social class with respect, opposing the rights of women, coloured people, homosexuals, even the elderly and children were all "normal" thinking patterns. And normal thinking patterns are constantly changing. That's why I vigorously support "freedom of speech".
To me, it symbolises the want for evolution. The notion itself allows other opinions to be heard, and alterations to existing laws, or abolition of old ones and the introduction of new ones signifies that we are still prepared to hear extreme views; that doesn't just disappear. Things like SIDS in particular, are recently concocted theories that have been listened to because firm reasoning was given in support of the notion. To be fair, your argument is compelling, and I can certainly agree with aspects of it (e.g. casting aside extreme views DOES happen, I will not deny that), but I wouldn't look at British society and say we are one collective, have one mind, have one voice. However manipulated public surveys are, they don't all return the exact same answers, do they?
And to prove I'm not a brainwashed liberal; I support "freedom of speech", but do not disapprove of "human rights violations" in certain circumstances. I'm not against the torture of terrorists if they've committed heinous crimes that have ended human lives, is just one small example.
ahh! what a gaping hole i left in my argument:O let me try to clear that up. "people really are easily swayed" what i meant by this was popular opinion or the general will, not on an induvidual basis..and so therfore..there are always going to be some people who are traditional(lol?) non-conformists, whose opinions are seen as "radical". i hope that filled the hole to a certain degree.
"you only meant to classify the proletariat as the suggestible members of the public" i would never!:p i think the proletariat (i feel like such a marxist) are more "open-minded" rather than suggestable, whereas educated people may never drift from a rigid set of beliefs. i hope i didn't just contradict myself again:p but thats what i meant to explain, that freedom of speech can allow unwise opinions to flourish through persuasive techniques and majoritarian support (democracy) and it can also stop people from being persuaded as the fact that they tolerate others, makes intolerance seem radical. anyway i hope that makes sense.
"do not disapprove of "human rights violations" in certain circumstances."...dude thats bad! torturing a terrorist wont stop other terrorists! it might even lead to more terrorism. i suppose there needs to be punishment or harsher techniques to extract information, but it would make us hyporcrites to use violent and terrifying measures on terrorists...but thats a different post altogether;).
Post a Comment