Continuing to think about the
questions of free speech and its responsible use, I thought I would clarify
something that I’ve hinted at or mentioned in passing to or three times in
previous posts, and that’s my attitude towards laws against inciting religious
or racial hatred, or hatred at all for that matter.
My first thought when presented
with these concepts was “Great idea!
Speech should be free, but clearly persuading people to commit acts of
violence is not on!” But that’s not what
these laws mean. Incitement to violence
is a crime, and, I think, rightly so, but inciting hatred? I have become convinced that making this
illegal isn’t right. Don’t get me wrong,
hatred is a terrible thing, both for the hated and (perhaps especially) for the
hater. However, stopping incitement of
hatred is not the same as stopping hatred itself. People shouldn’t hate, not because they’re
not allowed to (or rather because they’re not allowed to speak or act on it),
but because they’ve seen that there is no reason to.
For me, the question of an open
society, and of having an open mind, is that all ideas be allowed to sink or
float on their own merits. It is true
that some ideas are more subjective than others, others are less so. The point is that any idea should be allowed
to be aired, and people have the right to decide whether or not they think it
makes sense.
A few years ago, Nick Griffin,
the leader of the British National Party was to appear on Question time. The organisation Unite Against Fascism
campaigned to prevent him from being allowed to air his opinions on national
television, and tried to physically prevent him from entering the BBC
building. I can only assume that their
name is meant ironically. Happily, the
BBC stuck to its guns and allowed Nick Griffin to speak. As expected, when he did so, he showed
himself up for the ignorant, unpleasant little man he is. His ideas were permitted to be aired in
public, and taken on their own merits, which were very few indeed.
If I stand on a soap box in the
middle of the street, and cry out loud and clear that all people who make their
porridge with water, salt and pepper (ick!) are vile sub-human morlocks who
deserve to be stoned to death, I will rightly be judged to be a blithering
idiot, and my opinions given the scant credence they deserve. If I cry out that all black people are
sub-humans that deserve to be subjugated, then my views should be treated in
exactly the same way. That is, they
should be able to be aired, considered and judged on their own merits (in this
case, none whatsoever). Such opinions
are certainly offensive, but they are also completely idiotic. Should they be illegal though? If I produce a radio broadcast trying to
persuade people that Methodists are all insane and evil fanatics who ought to
be swept up into ghettoes and not allowed out, my views should again be
considered and judged on their merit or lack thereof. For my own good, I should probably then be
committed to a reasonably secure institution.
Bur should there be a law against being a blithering idiot or a frothing
lunatic? Does using the term ‘lunatic’
constitute hate-speech against people with mental health problems? If it does, should that be illegal?
I’ve said that incitement to violence
is rightly a crime, but I’m now not even sure of that. No matter how persuasive I can be, am I
ultimately responsible for someone else’s actions? If I told you to go and kill the first blonde
person you meet, and you do so, am I responsible for your actions? In the case of someone who is emotionally or
mentally vulnerable, and therefore isn’t necessarily fully responsible for
their own actions, then yes, possibly.
For most people though?
Ultimately, what this comes down
to is whether or not we think that human beings can be permitted the
responsibility to make their own decisions.
Do we trust people to be able to listen to a wide variety of conflicting
theories and opinions and beliefs, and judge them as objectively as it is
possible for us to do, weigh their flaws and merits and come to a reasonable
conclusion? Can we trust people to
listen to the imam who preaches death to non-Muslims, the pastor who preaches
death to homosexuals, the imbecile preaching death to
salt-and-pepper-porridge-eaters, and expect them to be able to say ‘You’re an
idiot’? Not because they feel pressured
into saying it, but because that’s what they actually think, and are not afraid
to say it.
Take it a step further. We talk about ‘freedom’. Can people be trusted to be free at all? Can we trust people to use their freedom
responsibly? If we can’t, then why do we
hold the concept of freedom so highly?
I am an idealist, especially when
it comes to human nature. I believe that
we can be trusted, but only if we ensure that people are able to hear all the
arguments, in every direction, not some sanitised and carefully filtered
version of the world, in which speech is limited only to what we agree with, or
don’t find offensive. The case of Nick
Griffin ably demonstrated the adage ‘remain silent and be thought a fool, or
open your mouth and remove all doubt’.
We need to allow every fool to open their mouth and allow people to see
them for what they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment