Freedom of Speech - Absolute or Relative?
87A Constitutional Right?
I remember when it was a popular justification to claim, "I'll say what I like. It's a free country". This has rather fallen out of fashion, to be replaced, in UK, with "I'm entitled to state my opinion", and in US, with "I'm only exercising my (Constitutional) right to free speech". An interesting word, 'right'. We'll come back to that later.
Americans are fond of appealing to the Constitution. In Britain we don't do this because there's no written constitution, no single document or point of reference. The British Constitution is usually defined to be 'The Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament'. Law, of course, tends to be proscriptive (don't do x,y,z). You'll never find a prescriptive law that reads 'say whatever you like'. In practice, in UK, only a court of law can decide if someone has acted illegally in, for example, inciting racial hatred.
Where I'm living now, in Doha, nobody claims any such right or entitlement to free speech. Here, as in much of the world, you can think what you like but some opinions, voiced in the wrong place, could result in detention or deportment. Similarly, the Internet here is heavily censored and even personal blogs can be blocked. Qatar is not Saudi; but it's not the West either.
Personally, Qatar's restriction on free speech doesn't particularly bother me. Why not? Because I'm here to work, not to reform the country, and experiencing how different cultures organise themselves is one of the main reasons for my travelling lifestyle. Hubbing and blogging as Paraglider gives me a little anonymity, but would afford me no real protection if I were prone to writing hubs like, for example, Sir Dent's The Birth of Palestine. Sir Dent (I'm sure he won't mind me saying this) if he lived in the Middle East, couldn't expect to remain there for long while producing pro-Israeli literature. And this brings me to the main point of all this preamble: is absolute freedom of speech invariably a good thing? Let's have a quick straw poll.
Should Freedom of Speech be an Absolute Right?
See results without votingWhat about the law?
Something many people don't realise is that you are allowed to break the law. It's illegal, but that's merely by definition. You are allowed to break the law but then the officers of the law are allowed, duty bound in fact, to apprehend you and turn you over to the courts.. This partly explains why proscriptive law works. If the law says 'don't do x' and you are seen doing it, it's a clear case of law-breaking. But prescriptive law isn't so easy. If you're seen not doing something, your immediate defence is "I was just about to do it".
When it comes to free speech, the UK position is that you're allowed to say anything in general unless, specifically, you're not. For example, specifically, you are not allowed to incite racial hatred, under the terms of the Race Relations Act.
In the US, it's more complicated, because of the Constitution. There, you're allowed to say anything in general unless, specifically, you're not, but then you can appeal to your Constituitional 'right'. The waters get muddy here.
Rt. Hon. Enoch Powell, MP
What are rights?
When I was about 20 and a student, there was a politician we loved to hate. His name was Enoch Powell, one of the champions of the Conservative right wing. Though I didn't care for his politics, and still don't, I always had a sneaking admiration for the man. He had a formidable intellect and was one of the best debaters in the House. I read his autobiography and was impressed with what he had to say about constitutional rights. His position was - if something is a right, then the State must defend it, by force if necessary. Thus, the right to shelter: the State is obliged to house the homeless (if they demand shelter). Or, the State is obliged to provide fresh drinking water.Basic provisional rights such as these are not problematical. But rights to act or speak are less straightforward. Logically, if I have the right of free speech, even if I speak offensively, the State must provide police protection to allow me to continue to offend. Taken to the limits, the state must protect me even when I speak against the State.Powell's view was that the State should be extremely cautious in extending rights that could end up in conflict with the law. This appears now to be the case in the US.
Free Speech and Political Correctness
Political Correctness was not around in Powell's day, at least not by any such name. There was also very little, if any, legislation along the lines of 'don't be offensive'. Recently. however, this is where the battle lines are drawn. Someone says or writes something that is offensive to a religious or cultural group. Members of the group complain. The writer bemoans political correctness and appeals to the right of free speech. The oft-repeated cycle is not edifying..
Maybe it would be better if there were less protective legislation, but also no 'right' of free speech either. That is, if the whole field of communication were removed from the legal domain (except inciting criminality). In UK, where there is no 'right' of free speech, people speak freely without it. It's simply unnecessary. Such deregulation would make individuals responsible for any reactions to their words, as they would no longer be able to hide behind a right.
I don't expect this to be a popular remark, but in some respects I think that the US Constitution, which was a great force for progress for a very long time, is now becoming a ball and chain, as it is too firmly tied to a time and an intellectual landscape that have passed away.
Now, just out of interest, let's round off by reconducting exactly the same poll.
Should freedom of speech be an absolute right?
See results without votingPrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
An important topic you've brought forward, Paraglider. Here in U.S. and I'm sure in the U.K., there are laws regarding defamation of character, libelous statements and so forth that don't seem to be used much these days, people apparently accepting same as belonging to the 'free speech' category as opposed to 'speaking freely.' I'm surprised that public figures don't get slapped much with lawsuits. I'm referring to politicians and, most particularly, to radio and tv talk show people who seem to get away with much vile commentary. I always thought the real intent of our constitutional right was aimed at being free to object publicly to government policies, to hold meetings and other such venues for the purpose of speaking out. I voted 'no' in your polls, but, come to think about it, I am changing my vote to 'yes' or maybe 'yes and no.' Everything is so complex these days.
Thank you for answering the request in this thorough and thought provoking manner. "Everything is so complex these days," vitaeb said. Well, that's very true. There are no simple solutions. There is common sense, okay. We have to think properly, gettings things straight. And this Hub is a good example of all that!
Even though we have the right to free speech, we really don't. The gov't can't technically pursue us for free speech. However, they really can. Maybe they won't just pick us up and throw us in jail, but hey can sure as hell intrude on our privacy and hound us and make business or normal living impossible. If they really don't like us, they can twist our words and make it looke like we are up to something. Private individuals can cause negative repercussions for some individual saying something they don't like. For example in high school, why doesn't some smart girl say "Hey people, can't you see that Susie (the prom queen) is a narcisisstic bitch and she treats all of you like dirt?" The smart girl may know this and it may be absolutely true and probably everyone else knows it too, but she is smart enough not to say it, cuz if it gets back to Susie, Susie will make her suffer. Susie probably won't come over to her house and beat the crap out of her because then Susie could go to jail for assault. No instead Susie makes sure anyone who says anything she doesn't like gets shunned. Shunning is horrible, but since it's a non-act, there's no law against it. A private company might not hire someone who was seen openly expressing pro Palestine sentiments. No law against that, they can say the chemistry wasn't right. So we really are extremely constrained in what we can say and who we can say it to, if we know what's good for us.
Your thoughts are well laid out here, Paraglider. I am not sure at this time how I feel about what you wrote. I do understand what you are saying, but I also unsderstand that if freedom of speech is regulated or abolished, it interferes with my beliefs as a Christian.
This is something I will have to ponder on.
I defended, to Jerry Falwell's office specifically, Larry Flint's right to publish the stuff he pbulished on the grounds that if we forbid it, then our opponents would have the right to forbid our printing of Sunday School material.
There is no right, nor should there be any right to be unoffended. Becoming offended is a choice you make. Elenore Rosevellte, I believe, said, "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission."
And when a conflict is as heated as the Palestninan/Israel confilict, someone is going to be offended. The fact that somone chooses to raise that level of offense to violence is not an exscuse to quiet the opposition. In fact, it's the opposite. I will not be intimidated away from seeking truth. Even if I start out in a very wrong place.
If someone tells me to shut up about Jesus because it offends them .. should I? I claim, boldly, that Jesus is the supreme being. I claim, boldly that Jesus is God's son. THat is in direct oppositon to those who claim "God has no son" ... why should I be silent? Sometimes people kill people who say that. Should that shut me up? Is my life really more valuable than truth?
The only reason I would be concerned about offending someone is a true concern for their feelings. If someone uses that concern to manipulate me, then perhaps their feelings aren't really what they claim? Compassion, then, becomes weaakness. Surely that's not a good thing?
Disagree? Yes! Argue? Yes! Offend? Yes! Shut up? NO!
(I do try not to offend, because I really do care)
Good topic. Nice job. Our free speech rights go pretty far in the U.S. For example: http://www.detroitiscrap.com/ Which I assume would be illegal in the UK and many other countries. And perhaps it should be. I have mixed feelings.
Hmmh, the link doesn't appear to be working. Perhaps it's just as well. The site is a purveyor of scurrilous, white racist crap.
Thought provoking hub, thank you. I've always been against any kind of restrictions on speech and a muzzled media. Today however, I wondered. I woke up to the news of terrorists having attacked various parts of Bombay, holding people hostages.
Is it because people are allowed to shoot their mouths off about their beliefs never mind who they are hurting? Does it mean there are no bounds of decency when it comes to airing one's views? And when inflammatory words spark off a reaction, we wonder why.
Freedom comes with responsibility. We have to treat it as a gift, not as licence to hurt. If we can't exercise control over ourselves, we deserve to be controlled.
Thanks, all, for these thoughful comments.
Pam - In my ideal world, there should be free speech moderated by basic courtesy. Laws proscribing some speech pitted against rights to speak 'freely' seem to me to set up an unnecessary polarity. I think it would be better if the whole field were removed from law, except in cases where criminality is involved. I agree with you entirely about manners. Arab societies (like Qatar) are far more polite than we have become. Politics and religion may be discussed, but not without first agreeing that all parties want the discussion. And often, at a point of disagreement, someone will say, "Let us not talk about this". It is not avoiding issues. Rather it is respecting differences and recognising the futility of conflict in a social setting.
Vitaeb - I agree it is complex. I also agree that the standard of mutual respect has been greatly eroded in recent times. I'm not advocating unquestioned reverence for public figures, but when we start labelling people as the antichrist, we've really lost all semblence of decency. I'm in favour of free speech, but not of enshrining it as a right.
Dutchman - thank you for making the request. I enjoyed thinking about this topic and remembering thinking about it all these years ago when reading Powell. On the subject of unpoliceable rights, I don't think I fully understood what he was saying at the time, but, as often happens, events have shown me what the philosophy meant.
Hot Dorkage - that has always been true. Free speech includes the freedom to heap trouble on yourself. In Saudi, the trouble is perhaps more tangible, but in the US, though more subtle, it's just as troubling. This is why I think free speech should not be a 'right', because it encourages the more naive to make asses of themselves.
Sir Dent - thanks for taking this in good part. As I said to you elsewhere, if you want me to edit you out of this, just ask. I don't really agree that deregulating free speech need interfere with anyones beliefs. What it does do is return to you the responsibility for any consequences of speaking freely. Is that such a bad thing?
BDazzler - Why can we not just treat speech like dancing? To my knowledge, no country in the world has the right to dance enshrined in its constitution. Yet when the spirit moves us we can dance. There's no need for the 'right'. Most of us have the good grace not to dance at a funeral and don't need a law proscribing that practice either.
Ralph - There are some foul websites out there. The web is interesting, because it's international reach takes it to places where free speech is not universal and standards are very different. I was very glad when Hubpages stopped 'adult' content, because it would only have been a matter of time before the whole hubpages domain would have been blocked in the Middle East. As it is, some of the content here still risks having the site blocked.
Shalini - It was very sad this morning to see these things happening in Bombay, and in hotels where I've stayed in happier times. Like you, I'm against censorship, but against the unnecessary 'right' as well.
Paraglider- As they say pen is mightier than the sword. Therefore my view is that we all have the right to speak but at the same time the responsibility not to abuse that right. If our speech is going to spread fear/hatred then such a speech needs to be curtailed. But it is a tough call to decide what is a reasonable and what is not?
In every society the majority of the people's aspiration is to have a free speech but that doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line every time. Mahatma Gandhi before he came to the political scene wasn't accepted for his peaceful philosophy (when people like Subhas chandra bose advocated violent methods to free the country). But some of the people saw his track record in south africa and felt it could be turned into a success.
But having said that in general the majority's aspirations have to respected to have free speech (I heard in China even google is censored) which isn't a correct thing. But at the same time speech which promotes hatred, distrust, fear has to be nipped in the bud.
Most importantly in general one should respect others views and be sensitive to as many people's views/beliefs before making statements.
I guess this comment is too long. Thanks for such a thought provoking hub.
Hi Countrywomen - thanks for commenting. I agree that most of us feel we are absolutely entitled to hold an opinion. No-one can take that away from us. Going public with the opinion is the grey area. The question, really is whether and to what extent the law should be involved. Salman Rushdie's book 'The Satanic Verses' is a case in point. The UK Govt has protected him for years, at considerable public expense, from the consequences of his writing. But that was an individual decision to protect a British subject in danger. It wasn't an obligation because of an enshrined 'right'. I know it's a subtle distinction, but it's a real one.
Paraglider- I have question for you: Did salman rushdie expect the backlash based on the subject he was covering? One needs to accept the responsibility of one's actions if one knowingly takes that plunge.
The same goes for the themes like Da Vinci code which are not helping in anyway foster peace, tolerance and understanding.
One has the right to creative expression but not at the expense of mentioning things which may cause widescale damage(the furore over the satanic verses across many nations). Religion is a very touchy subject and any book which is unless absolutely vetted by the authoriy in that particular religion shouldn't be allowed to be published.
Salman Rushdie deliberately courts controversy. Also he is a very brilliant writer who fully understands the power of his own words. There's no doubt that he knew his book would offend. He might not have anticipated the Ayatollah's Fatwa, but certainly he knew he was fomenting trouble.
Was he entitled to write what he did? I'd say yes, he was. Was he entitled to expect Government protection? I don't think so. His assassination would have been an attrocity. Nevertheless, he's lucky to be alive.
Is he paying for the government protection from the sales of his book publications?
Also are you aware when such people are protected by the government than that allows the perception that the government may also have a subtle hand in encouraging such writing?
And that may further provide fodder for certain people who are looking for such excuses to take on such governments/countries. (Of course it maybe a exaggeration)
Once we throw a stone in the water then ripples are bound to be caused.
By the way I hope you don't mind my opinions as I am being too direct without any attempt to be polite..hehe
That I don't know. I hope so. I think triggering an international incident has to be seen as an irresponsible use of a talent. Same applies to the recent Danish cartoons.
Paraglider- Iam a big fan of your thinking ability. I do like to discuss with open minded people like you. it's always so nice to talk to someone directly without having to make an effort to be nice....hehe
CW - I think you are a welcome addition to this community too, but we'll have to stop trading compliments or people will talk ;)
Paraglider- No worries. I just wanted to let you know that even if I disagree with you I still admire you(ok my last compliment for the day). Going to bed. Have a great day.
Goodnight - at least dreams are free!
To answer your question - in the declaration of independendance it says "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal ..." it then clarifies what that means ... "in that that they are endowed by the creator with certain unalianable RIGHTS ..."
Our founders believed that no government can grant a right. Rights exist as independent entities. Governments that do not protect the rights of their people are answerable to "the creator". (whoever or whatever that was varied, but there was a consensus that he/she/it existed)
We justified our break from England on the basis that King George and parliment failed in it's duty to protect those rights.
When we made the constitution, the "Bill of Rights" were added to remind future generations of exactly wich rights the government had the obligation to protect.
Your assertion that there are really no rights is a consistent and logical consequence of your non-belief in a creator (pleae forgive the oversimplificaation, and if this is not your position, please correct me gently, I do not intend to put words in your mouth, it is my understanding of your last statement)
If there is no creator or ultimate authority that humans are responsbible to, we are allowed to make up our own rules. So, rights don't really exisit. So, there is no higher basis for any laws. In that case, there is no basis for saying the 3/5 compromise was the most abhorent thing done by people claiming that all men were created equal.
The truth is the rights of the slave population existed. Our government did not recognize those rights. That failure lead to 200+ years of unessary hate and bloodshed. However, had the slaves been allowed to speek freely, and the rights defended, perhaps more people would have truly heard their pain. Maybe people who's rights were protected would have simply saw it was wrong. The rights exisited. Our government failed to protect it. We paid a high price for that failure.
From a strictly logical point of view ... is it really logical to speak freely against free speach?
Is this not the core fear of the agnostic/atheist population? That if the theists get a strong enough majority their voices will be silenced?
Let me assure you that I will defend your rights to say "There is no God" with the same fervency that I say "There is" ... all the while attempting to not only say, but show you truth. But if my, or your ablity to speek truth as we see it is denied, then deception will necessrily be the rule of the day.
If the right of free speech is not recognized, the only opinions allowed will be the opinions of those in power. Surely you don't see this as good?
BDazzler - My view is rather different. I'd say there's no need to appeal to a creator before we can agree to treat each other with respect. That is just one of the ways in which I feel the US Constitution is anachronistic. You have a pluralist society many of whom acknowledge no creator but are indistinguishable from Creationists in how they treat their neighbours and how they wish to be treated.
I'd prefer that the law focus on outlawing things that are patently harmful to society and its members and that it steer clear of over-arching statements about unpoliceable rights. I have no problem speaking freely without appealing to the right to do so. So I'm not attacking free speech in any way. I'm seeing it as a 'given' in a civilised society, though the responsibility for consequences should rest with the speaker.
"So I'm not attacking free speech in any way. I'm seeing it as a 'given' in a civilised society"
That 'given-ness' is what I would call a 'self-evident' 'unalienable right' ...
'though the responsibility for consequences should rest with the speaker'
Interestingly Jesus seems to agree with you. He says 'To whom much is given, much is required'
Forgive me for laughing at the idea that the eternal creates and anachronism. I find that amusing.
Very well then, I shall defend your right to say I have no rights. Though I also defend my right to say I do. :)
Be amused by all means. One of my many freedoms is the freedom not to need to appeal to any god or state for the 'right' to speak. I just speak :)
"If there is no creator or ultimate authority that humans are responsbible to, we are allowed to make up our own rules. So, rights don't really exisit."
BDazzler--Your statement makes the assumption that the only reason human beings would act decently towards each other and abide by laws is fear of a higher authority or deity. But actually, pure self-interest moves people to the same end if they only think it through. Mistreat others, let them go hungry while you eat, curse them, and eventually they will rise up against you.
So yes, we make our own rules, but we all have a vested interest in making those rules fair, generous, and general. Treat others well, as you yourself would be treated and create the kind of peace and freedom you want for yourself. Even the Bible paraphrases this: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you--but that doesn't mean belief in God is required for the Golden Rule to work. God doesn't have to enter into it at all.
I'm not saying there is no God. My own position is that it's not possible to know and that such discussions go nowhere precisely because it's NOT possible to know.
I'm just saying there are lots of reasons for people to behave decently toward one another that have nothing to do with a belief in God.
Religious free speech has always seemed to me to be meant to protect freedom to congregate and worship as we each choose, NOT the freedom to get up in some strangers face and proselytize in a threatening hateful manner. It's the second thing that is getting on people's nerves lately, not the first.
Paraglider, having the right to free speech includes the right to determine for yourself when to exercise it, and when to refrain.
Hot dorkage is correct that people often feel constrained by practical considerations, such as shunning and failure to employ, from using their full measure of free speech. In this way, the market constrains the rights of market participants who feel that their financial and social needs are more important than their need for self-expression.
The right to free speech cannot be freely exercised without complete economic independence. This is why those who say that socialism will not take away people's freedoms in anything but the economic sphere are wrong.
Academicians used to be protected by tenure so that they could say unpopular things and not lose their jobs. "Political correctness" laws effectively did away with that.
When I see the banks bailed-out and the government threatening to go into the business of manufacturing, this threatens not just my freedom of property but also my freedom of speech.
To be able to say what you want, you need a food source that is not under anyone else's control. Whoever controls the pantry controls the people. You must be independent to speak freely. This does not require great wealth, but it does require absolute property rights.
Pam, I disagree that I make that assumption.
Having read your hub, I do understand that the idea of a "higher authority" has been seriously abused, and that abuse has been personal. I still shudder at those Little Johnny stories. And it is not for fear retribution from God that I say these things. I agree that the "God Threat" is severely abused in many ways.
What you are describing is 'enlightened self interest', but even in the absense of a personal deity, or even an intellegence behind creation, that 'enlighted self interest' becomes authoritive. The reasons you give are true. So, perhaps truth, then becomes the authority.
My point, granted, not well made, is that there is something 'beyond' simple self interest that we inately see as 'right' and 'wrong'. If it is not a personal deity, it is 'something higher'. Even if that 'something higher' is an enlightened version of self interest.
I do see what you mean, BDazzler, but you must also see that appealing to something "beyond" can become crushingly authoritative and irrational as quickly as enlightened self interest can. If you are truly enlightened about your self-interest then you don't become authoritarian because you know it ultimately is self-defeating--that is, people will get mad at your authoritarian tactics and rebel.
I don't see this an appeal to something higher, I just see it as pragmatism. I suppose you could say at root we need shared values--but again, there's a danger in making them "higher" values. Higher than what? Who says?
Over and over, for me, it comes down to courtesy and common sense. We don't really have to construct some kind of lifeboat philosophy on ethics and human behavior to know when we are being offensive. What's wrong with all of us just agreeing not to be A**holes because it makes everyone's day easier and more pleasant?
I see no reason to drag God into that proposition at all.
Pam, I think, we may be dealing in semantics. Within your paragrah what I mean by "higher", you may mean by "easier and more pleasent".
I think, perhaps, I am using words that mean different things to me, because of my experiences, than they do to you because of yours.
I think we can agree on that BDazzler. (o:
We probably are saying the same thing in different languages. Happy Thanksgiving!
Aya - thanks for contributing. I think we can get tied up in the matter of rights whereas all that's really called for is pragmatism. Already we're seeing that there is disagreement whether a right is from God, from the State, from Society or from within. But no-one is arguing that free speech is not a good thing. I prefer the simple assumption that anything that is not illegal is legal. Only truly heinous speech (e.g. inciting genocide) should be proscribed. The rest should be left to good taste. Then the whole concept of rights is unnecessary. And I also think people are at least partly responsible for the consequences of their speech, though some consequences (e.g. the reactions of the insane) can't be guarded against.
Paraglider, pragmatism works for pragmatists -- but not for idealists. Idealists sometimes want to say something very unpopular, something that could get them lynched. It's nice to have government protection from a lynching. This does not, however, mean that the government should feed us when we are being shunned by those who disagree with us.
The whole idea behind freedom under limited government is that we are entitled to freedom from being molested by our neighbor, ( the right not to be murdered, beaten or stolen from) -- but we do not have the right to demand that others feed us or give us shelter. That's where one person's rights end -- and another's begin.
Another thing I observe, para, that at the time of this comment, the straw poll, and the survey question have not changed, so evidently, these opinions are strongly held, and your hub, while interesting, evidently has not yet persuaded.
I find that fascinating on a whole other level.
And Happy Thanksgiving to you too Pam!
(And everybody else!)
Aya - no problem. Pass a law saying do not lynch. End of story. Then you can say whatever you like. The lyncher is the criminal. There is no need for the 'right'.
BDazzler - I am not trying to persuade. I'm trying to open a question. (And, by the way, you have no way of knowing how many voters have changed sides. Maybe most have. You can't tell from the polls).
By and large I find myself in agreement Paraglider. Still, however pragmatic one may be, this area can become very subjective. I certainly don't like the idea of a government being able to pass laws making it illegal to criticize said government. On the other hand there is undoubtedly speech that should be considered criminal. Hatespeech, speech inciting to riot may be criminal. Such things must be decided on a case by case basis. It's a knotty topic.
CWB - it's a difficult area. Personally I prefer the assumption that everything is legal unless specifically proscribed. Rights are best restricted to deliverables like food, water, shelter. But the right of free speech could never be removed from the US constitution because it would be political suicide to do so, even though it would really make no difference to what you are allowed to say.
The right to those things essential for survival. Human rights. Unfortunately that clashes with free market capitalism. But that's another story.
Those rights to deliverables certainly seem obvious. It's almost ludicrous that they should need to be protected by law.
There is one group whose freedom of speech should be severely curtailed; corporate persons.
Very interesting topic, very hard to define the freedom of speech. I suppose that's why it was left ambiguous, to give it too many boundaries is to do away with the freedom to speak. However, I think we must be reasonable, and apply reason to every situation. While I don't like what some people may say, if it does not cause me direct harm, then the person probably has the right and I should ignore it or speak my mind as well. However, we all know that speech inflames others to actions that could harm, so there the law becomes involved and interpretation begins.
I have always thought that our founding fathers were very concerned about free speech being a right, because they felt so unheard and voiceless before - ? Not sure, but that makes sense to me. Personally, I like it to be a right, but I do believe that the more rights we describe, the more we have to defend.
Yet, when you think bout it, in tightly communist controlled countries, speaking your mind can get you killed by the government.
Here, the guy on the street will shoot you...either way, you're in trouble. Which one will we prefer? =))
If my speech causes by repetition, or other power associated with it, harm to another, then I could be held accountable. However that is very hard to measure, as we have seen recently with the "mom" who helped her daughter "harass" another with speech online, and the victim of the "speech" committed suicide. A jury convicted the mom of a lessor offense, again illustrating that speech is hard to put boundaries around.
I don't have the answers, but basically, I think measuring words and thinking before speaking as my parents and grandparents taught, still holds true.
We can't predict all outcomes, but will hit a reasonably harmless speech if we think of others first. "...Angry words, o let them never....From the tongue, unbridled slip...."
Or as Palin should have memorized...."It's better to be silent and thought dumb, as to speak and remove all doubt."
My feeling is that free speech is an American myth. Its true we have more freedom here about what we say, or shall I say more protection for what we say, but for the most part, if you are poor in America, your freedoms will be greatly violated and if you tell an officer you are practicing your constitutional rights, expect a billy club to the gut, your house put under survellience, or to get thrown in jail. Writers should know there are still movements to ban books from schools and libraries. DH Lawrence, Henry Miller books among many others were banned from the United States for many years. And when it comes to publishing controversy, better not try to make it your first book. Look at happened to Bill Maher, got thrown off network TV. Even look at Jeremiah Wright, its his right, in his own church, to say what he wants, and though he may have helped his community and church in thousands of ways, his words have turned him into the American Nightmare.
CWB - even the deliverables raise questions. If, as a teenager, I declare myself homeless by walking out of the family home, is the Government obliged to house me? The problem with rights is that it assumes a reasonable government and a reasonable populace. When you have neither, it becomes difficult.
Marisue - you and Pam are coming from more or less the same place, that self discipline is the only way to 'police' the right of free speech. It was always meant to be a freedom to be reasonable, not a license to foment trouble. Worth remembering that the Constitution came out of the Enlightenment era, whose pillars were Tolerance, Reason & Humanity. The founding fathers were trying to enshrine the spirit of the Enlightenment in the Constitution.
Goldentoad - that is all true. And you don't have to be poor to be restricted. Almost every contract includes a Non Disclosure Agreement where you effectively sign your right away. My feeling is that rights don't make good law, being too hard to protect, even when the will is there.
Paraglider, the need for the right of free speech is in order to secure government protection. Minus the right -- if it were, for instance, illegal to say something that might offend someone else -- then when you called the police to protect you, they would arrest you, instead of your assailant -- or in addition to your assailant.
The same goes for other rights, such as the right to engage in free trade. If you don't have that right, then you forfeit police protection. This is the reason many prostitutes are brutalized. When what you do isn't protected by the law, the law will not protect you.
Paraglider, you do realize that the constitutional rights guaranteed in the bill of rights are not worded as positive commandments? They all start this way: "Congress shall make no law ..."
Excellent hub, Paraglider, and interesting conversation. I am a strong supporter of the U.S. Constitution as written. While it's not perfect, and some of the Supreme Court's decisions leave much to be desired, it effectively preserves our rights.
Nevertheless, no document can be totally effective without the courage and determination of the people. The Bush Administration's attempt to dismantle the Constitution came disturbingly close to success, but was foiled finally by an outraged public at the polls. The Bill of Rights is critical, none the less, because without it we would not have a leg to stand on. When we have a "right" to something, like free speech, that doesn't mean there are no consequences to excising that right. That "right" is merely a "legal" right, but it does not absolve us from any other consequences.
For some "speech" the speaker could be fired, beaten by those who disagree, etc. Your "right" to free speech only deals with the law. Court decisions have placed restrictions on free speech despite the Constitutional "right." One may not shout "fire" in a crowded theater nor use "hate" language that amounts to a hate crime.
I agree with Cold War Baby about "corporate persons." The interpretation of the Constitution that enables corporations to be considered "persons" is the cause of much injustice. It should be overturned.
Most importantly, any restriction placed on citizens criticizing public officials would make democracy impossible no matter how outlandish those comments may be. If citizens, for example were unable to point out the myriad reasons why George W. Bush should have been impeached, it may have been impossible to turn this country around.
We need the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
Free speech is a euphemism and does not truly exist. Even in the most free countries on earth, if you offend "the powers that be" there are consequences they may be real, like imprisonment or beatings or subtle harassment or blockading of your rights or even trade or virtual, by shunning or vilifying you. Who finally is the arbiter of what represents free speach? Your freedoms or my freedoms?
Great, thought provoking hub, Paraglider.
Aya - thanks for the follow-up comments. I've been in Malaysia and not able to answer till now. Prostitutes are usually operating illegally and as outlaws they can't expect the same protection as legitimate traders. Where they are operating legally, e.g. in Amsterdam's red light district, I don't think they are subject to much abuse.
The formula 'Congress shall make no law..' assumes the reality of the 'right' that Congress should not proscribe. So does the simpler formula of just not proscribing it. But it's not about to change. Givernment will continue to act illegally when it suits them. That's usually quicker that pre-legitimising the crime they want to commit.
William - Thanks for that considered comment. The Bill of Rights was a noble enterprise. However, by elevating certain 'activities' to the status of Rights, it creates a difference in status between such activities and many others that simply hadn't been considered by the Fathers. This is onother reason why I prefer the assumption of 'legal unless proscribed'. Because who knows what new paths (parts of) society may choose to follow?
Sixtyorso - if nothing else, I think the commentary has shown this is not an open & shut case. Thanks for the read.
Interesting hub, Paraglider. I remember, a long time ago, studying the nuances of the British 'non' constitution at school. Strange things happened with drugs laws - if a chemist synthesised a new drug, the Government first had to identify it, name it, and then declare it illegal. Until that time, no court in the land could convict you for taking it. I am not sure if the law has changed since then, but it shows that no system is perfect.
I agree with most of the points that constitutions are pretty irrelevant now, anyway. There are so many ways that Govenment can spy on you, and politicians have become masters at twisting words. For people in the public eye, it is not so much Freedom of Speech that is important, but the freedom not to have your words twisted out of context by the media.
Hi Sufidreamer - I agree that most rights are either relative or even wholly illusory. The right to privacy - does anyone think that exists? I don't think the US Constitution is going away though!
It is a tough one. I lived in Ireland a few years ago, and whenever I flew back to the UK, I always seemed to get picked on by the immigration people. They wanted to know where I had been, what I had been doing and who my friends in Ireland were, before letting me back into my own country. Mind you, with the beard, I probably looked far too much like Bobby Sands.
I must admit that one of the many reasons I left the UK is because I hate the way that a lowly civil servant has the right to know everything about me. Greece has a strong emphasis upon personal freedom, but even here you can see the way that the wind is blowing. Once the bureaucracy is computerised, goodbye constitution.
Well, I'll be flying to US next week, with a passport full fo stamps from the Middle East. I'll be interested to see how Immigration react to that!
I hope you have a nice visit to the U.S. If you get to Detroit give me a call.
Paraglider- I have written a hub about Muslims and since you have vast knowledge about these subjects can you enlighten us. Also DK5 has raised some problem areas to which if you can come up with some solutions that would be great. Thanks in advance for your inputs.
Regards,
CW
Ralph - it's a very short trip to Washington DC. Only two days, so I won't be travelling around. Next time, OK?
Countrywomen - I'll check it out. I'm still catching up from my Malaysia trip, so give me a day or two?
Paraglider- Sure no problem and take your time. Have a safe and successful trip to US.
Ok. Or if you get to San Francisco in the future, stop by HubPages. I visited their offices last week when I was there for Thanksgiving. However, since it was a holiday weekend I didn't get to meet the HupPages gang.
You have really made me stop and think. I really don't know how to respond (agreeing or disagreeing) with your great article. It has achieved what all good pieces should - making people think. I've got something to chew on tonight.
Ralph - I'd like to get back to SF sometime. I found it a very comfortable city tolive and work in. Maybe next year!
RGraf - thanks for that comment. Writing this hub and reading the varied responses was a learning exercise for me too.
Paraglider,
Thanks for opening this important discussion. The idea of "freedom of speech" as a right is a conundrum even in societies where it is supposedly protected by law. The question of how far this right can be taken until it becomes a crime is totally subjective, hence almost impossible to solve. We have all seen, and some have experienced the results of being targeted by someone going too far with the spoken or written word, i.e. the Holocaust, Rushdi, Ruanda.
Most of us know when enough is enough. Hopefully it is only a minority who don't, but even they can cause a riot or a war by not knowing the limits without a law to protect them.
Maris - What I'm finding, and enjoying, in the comments here is that many people are agnostic on this issue, or at least they are when they start thinking about it. That's always a healthy sign, the abandonment of simplistic yes or no positions.
Paraglider,
I've come back to this hub several times to read the comments, and it strikes me that people in the West who have grown up with a belief in Freedom of Speech very probably will come at this issue from a different angle than those from the East who have learned the value of discretion at an early age.
Coming from my own background, I've also learned the value of speaking carefully. There's more to freedom of speech than being able to say whatever we like. Words are powerful tools that can soothe and calm, inspire and excite, or damn and destroy. We should all choose our words well, especially when they're being recorded, or appearing in print!
Very interesting discussion and of course this brings me to pose this question. Free speech in the United States has provided the opportunity for many to refer to our president as “the Chimp”. We have all seen or heard it. Many have probably had quite a chuckle with it or maybe even said it. This has not been limited to a few blogs. My question is ---if it has been so accepted by so many here and abroad would it be tolerated and protected if the comparison were made to the incoming president? In the name of freedom of speech? I don't mean any disrespect to the president elect, there has been plenty of that towards the current one, I am merily posing the question
There's no question that the U.S. Constitution has been flagrantly violated over the years, especially recently, nevertheless, it remains relevent. If the provisions of the Constitution can be circumvented, which they have, how far, then, could government go if there were no such restrictions? Currently, we can hold out hope that a new president and a newly constituted Supreme Court will swing the country back to sanity. Without a constitution, it would be far more difficult to reach consensus on these issues.
Amanda - Good comment, thanks. Western freedom of speech has given us satirical comedy, from TW3 (That Was the Week that Was) to Spitting Image. Do you remember they ran the sketch sequence "The President's brain is missing" about Ronald Reagan? But these shows came out of UK, where there is no 'right', merely an understanding that we are free to speak. I suspect that the climate of tolerance has changed since then, or maybe we've just lost a few good writers?
DK5 - GWB's face lends itself to cariacature as a chimp, just as some people are dog-faced, etc. The political cartoonists discover these things and bring them to our attention, but the inages don't stick unless they are based on real physiology. Also, if GWB had been doing a great job, the cartoonists would have been kinder to him. Obama is in his honeymoon period with the press. If he delivers, they'll be (relatively) kind to him. But if he messes up, they'll declare open house, as they did with Bush.
William - I understand your point that the Constitution is a landmark. If you've strayed from it, it is something to go back to. But that is one of my concerns - why go back to sanity when there is the option of going forward to a new sanity? I don't think this is mere semantics. some 'rights' are constitutional but some are not, The Constitution doesn't mention freedom of choice of marital partner. Why not? Because the Fathers hadn't given it a second thought. Society changes. Not many of us have a neighbour with an ox we can covet ;)
Hi Paraglider,
I certainly do remember Spitting Image. It was in the hayday of Mrs T and there were some classic send-ups. I loved the President's Brain is Missing, and also the Norman Tebbit sketches where he wore a leather jacket and spoke like an East End heavy. The dear old Queen Mum was generally portrayed either tippling or at the races, and always with a Northern Accent. We still do have comedy programmes based around current events such as Mock the Week, Have I Got News for You, and Bremner, Bird and Fortune, but they're not as potent or memorable as Spitting Image.
Amanda - BB&F I like, but it's almost too clever to be effective. Have I got News for You is also OK, but I think it is too much of a comedy showcase for the panelists, especially Ian Hislop, if he is still part of it?
Yup. He's still there, as is Paul Merton. The only big change is that they have guest presenters each week varying from Boris Johnson right through to Brian Blessed! Have you seen Mock the Week? It's a bit anarchic, but quite amusing.
DK5, I've seen caricatures of Obama exaggerating his large ears. None were as demeaning as those of Bush and Cheney, but Obama is certainly not off limits. It won't be long before we see cartoons denigrating his appearance as well. In fact I'd be willing to bet I could find a bunch that have appeared already. They are a part of our heritage going back to the earliest days of the country.
nicely written
Amanda - Brian Blessed's a name from the past. Z-Cars if I'm not mistaken?
Ralph - cartoonists aside, we had Arnold Schwarzenegger making schoolboy jokes about his 'skinny arms'. A bit pathetic, that.
Lgali - thanks :)
Well Ralph you may find this surprising but I i will be just as offended if the comparisons are made to Obama. Something in me,being an American and respect for the President type of thing I guess. Obama has surprised me and I hope he remains more true to the speech he gave in 2004 than the politician he had to become to win the presidency. He has a very tough road ahead of him and I hope he is up to the challenge.
Paraglider, my comment about prostitutes was precisely to make this point: when prostitution is illegal, prostitutes get beaten up, even though beating up people is also illegal. It doesn't help the prostitute that there is a law against assualt and battery. Where prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are fair game.
For the same reason, your suggestion of passing a law to prohibit lynching of people who say unpopular things is not helpful. We don't need a law against lynching. Murder is already illegal. But if the government is allowed to prohibit people from saying unpopular things, then people saying unpopular things will not have the protection that the law accords against murder.
It's all very well and good to say that all that is required is pragmatism. Pragmatists will always get by okay, no matter the situation. They are essentially opportunists. It's idealists who need protection. It's for the Galileos of this world that we need freedom of speech. They need to be protected from "community standards" of what people are allowed to say.
As for your statement that the government will tend to do illegal things, the founding fathers were well aware of that. This is why they wanted the bill of rights in place. It is also why they reserved the right to bear arms to the people -- so that we could rise up and rebel any time the U.S. government starts to behave like the British government that the founders had just overthrown!
Paraglider- Would you agree the conclusions drawn by SirDent are to be allowed as a matter of freedom of speech or should their be some level of self regulations (Btw this is the hub I am talking about http://hubpages.com/hub/Christ-or-Muhammad )
CW. I know this is Paraglider's hub. I believe what you are thinking about is something like the following hub.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Defamation-of-Religion
SirDent- I have left a comment in your hub. Yes just as Arkwriter has drawn certain conclusions which he wants to believe in and the same has been undertaken by you in drawing your own conclusion to suit your beliefs.
Why can't you look at positives in other faiths or beliefs? Does it make one a better christian if he/she condemns other beliefs or faiths?
Aya - I fully understand why the Bill of Rights was enacted. But in practice do you think that you have greater freedom of speech in the US than in Western Europe or Australasia? And wouldn't you say that the right to bear arms has been seriously misundersood and abused? The Bill of Rights is in no danger; it would be political suicide for any government to attempt to repeal it.
Countrywomen & Sir Dent - I believe a measure of self restraint is the responsibility that has to go hand in hand with the 'right' to free speech. Sir Dent and I clashed over the hub you mention and a couple of others too. We needn't rehearse the arguments again here. But I agree with you that there is simply no need to indulge in competitive religion. It leads nowhere.
Paraglider- I didn't know that you already had a debate over a similar issue. I am sorry if I unnecessarily tried to drag you into a further conversation which was unpleasant for you.
CW - no problem at all :) Sir D uses the option to show only the more recent comments with a link to the rest, so you probably didn't see my contributions. (This is to help long-tailed hubs to open faster). Although Sir D and I have sparred on a few issues, there's nothing personal involved. (And we both play guitar!)
Paraglider- That is the mark of a great person that one finds a common ground in every situation. I also learnt guitar for about 3 months learnt all the major/minor chords but haven't practiced in a while. I guess I was too caught up with studies and career. Once I get settled in life will pursue guitar again. I feel so lucky to have the opportunity to interact with people of your calibre and temperament.
It's just so sad that some people can't have an open and tolerant attitude towards other faiths and beliefs. Such writings are not only promoting bad blood but also may be dangerous to others and one self.
Very Interesting Points all of them,
I have travelled the world over, been to some really cool places and some not so cool places. Picked up a few things about humanity along the way.
I have always felt as if I could say or do anything I wanted to without regard for place and time.
A law can no more stop a murder than it can prevent unpopular speech. Just as a law cannot protect murder or unpopular speech. The law is just an after thought, a paradigm that shifts with the wind.
This is the brilliance of the founding fathers the realization that all humans are born with free will, no matter where they are in the world. They also had the knowledge that only a few will ever exercise this free will. That is why they chose a republic over a democracy.
A very small minority that will forever battle for the hearts and souls of men. The pendulum of power perpetually swinging back and forth between them.
These men fear not laws or judgment as history can be the their only judge and even that judgement ebbs and flows with the tide.
Laws are for the 85% that can be controlled by the usual Skinnerism's. A group controlled and moved by simple stick and carrot tactics. You don't have to be right or just, if you have an angry mob.
TMG
Hi TMG - I'm also much travelled. I recognise (and share) the personal feeling of freedom to speak and act as you see fit. This is very much what I was alluding to in saying "Something many people don't realise is that you are allowed to break the law." Laws are fundamentally warnings of possible consequences of illegal acts. They don't remove your choice to act and risk the consequences. This is one of the reasons I don't think the Bill of Rights really changes anything. It can't be denied though, that in enshrining certain specific freedoms, it differentiates these from freedoms it does not mention, some of which may be more important to some people than those which it enshrines.
CW - even five minutes a day is enough to keep the guitar "under the fingers". Try to make the time :)
Paraglider- I have to buy a guitar and then also learn from the scratch again it was nearly a 6 years ago I learnt for 3 months but then started preparing for GRE and dropped out of the guitar class. I hope once I get married and settle down in one place I will buy guitar and join a class. And then will bug people like you for any issues I encounter...LOL
Paraglider, yes, I do feel that I have more freedom of speech here in the US than elsewhere, but this is also partially because I also have freedom of religion and property rights. I think that one of the reasons so many people don't feel what a difference it makes is that they are so well assimilated to the cultures they live in that it would never really occur to them to do or say something that would get them in serious trouble with the general populace and the powers that be. Don't kid yourself: it takes very little courage to comment on the prominent ears of an incumbent president. Real freedom of speech is the ability to say something substantive -- and to back it up with action.
The right to bear arms has been misinterpreted, certainly. It's a misinterpretation to think it was meant to secure hunting rights or the right to shoot the occasional burglar. I mean, yes, it goes without saying that you are allowed to hunt and have the right to self-defense. It never even occurred to the founders that anyone would question that. But the real reason it was inserted in the bill of rights was so that the people could rise up against an oppressive government.
What's happened in the meanwhile, though, is that the nature of the general populace has changed. Most people don't even remember what the American Revolution was about.
Aya - in Western Europe and Australasia we also have freedom of religion and property rights. These are de facto rights even without a constitution that specifically says so. I know the difference between free and closed societies, having lived and worked in both. But as others have said, many 'freedoms' are illusory even in free societies (the US included) as you very quickly find out when you discomfit the authorities.
Paraglider, Great hub by the way. How do you feel about the expulsion of Al Jazeera from Iraq and the censorship it has received from not only the Iraqi government but from other Nations not happy with the way it covers certain events? Is this a case where you believe in restrictions on the press or do you think they have the right to complete protections such as they would have recieved here in the United States.
DK5 - Al Jazeera has in its time managed to offend both the US and Saudi. That suggests they must be doing something right! Regarding your comment about complete protection "such as they would have recieved here in the United States", seriously you need to check your facts. The US has bombed at least two Al Jazeera bureaux (Kabul and Baghdad) and it's well documented that it was only Tony Blair's intervention that persuaded GWB not to bomb the headquarters here in Qatar. Free speech, indeed!
Paraglider,I am confused by your answer. Al Jazeera has been expelled from Iraq and has been censored elsewhere. I don't think my question to you was out of line. The fact that you work for Al Jazeera should make you a little more sensitive to restrictions on the press and give you first hand knowledge. It is now becoming obvious that you may be a little biased toward the United states .
DK5 - For the record, I don't 'work for Al Jazeera'. I am an independent contractor and work with many broadcast companies, But I'm not sure what I said that has confused you? The two bombed bureaux and the proposal to bomb the headquarters are public knowledge. They are evidence that the incumbent administration in the US does not support freedom of the press. I have no anti-US bias, but I dislike the foreign policy of the incumbent and, in the spirit of this hub, surely am 'free' to say so?
Paraglider, I think I understand some of the source of misunderstanding in the exchange between you and DK5.
In Iraq, the U.S. is a foreign invader, whose occupation includes meddling in local affairs to the point of military law. There is no pretense that the U.S. involvement in Iraq is even remotely "democratic" or that any of the rights that U.S. citizens have secured in the bill of rights apply to the local inhabitants. If the U.S. is infringing on the freedom of the press in Iraq, that is not very surprising, nor is there anything even remotely unconstitutional about it. Vei victis. Woe to the Conquered.
Have you ever experienced what freedoms Americans qua Americans have at home? That is the only way to properly judge freedom of speech in the U.S.
As for property rights, I'll admit they're gradually being eroded away here, too. But surely you don't think I could do with my small amount of money and acreage what I am doing here in Missouri, if I lived in Qatar or Scotland?
Paraglider, it is not a fact that Tony Blair thwarted an attack on your headquarters in Qatar,it was a tabloid accusation that Al Jazeera the company that you to work for pursued and never was able to prove. Al Jazeere was also known to show be-headings live, a rumor that was perceived as a fact and was quite damaging to your network. Do you see how facts and rumors can be confused. Al Jazeere was also accused of helping the insurgency and having actual insurgents embedded with their agency as cover. Fact? Probably not but the damage is similar to the damage you portray against My great nation with your falsehoods.
Aya - since the earliest days of broadcasting, governments have 'jammed' transmissions from stations they dislike. There's nothing new in that. Bombing is a little more serious, especially in friendly countries, no? (By the way, my involvement in broadcasting is technical, not editorial).
As an ex-pat, you can't buy property in Qatar but if you were Qatari you could do almost anything you wanted to. I'm not sure why you think you'd have a problem in Scotland though, apart from the high price of land, of course.
DK5 - Exceptionally, I have approved your comment in which you accuse me of lying. I will not approve more in that vein.
Furthermore, for anyone who wants to know more about me, there is a very simple 'audit trail' from my profile page to my personal and business websites. I am proud of the work I do and have nothing to hide. But it is not your place to throw my business associations in my face as if I should be ashamed of them. Please desist, then we can discuss the topic sensibly.
I watch Al-Jazeera a lot, as an alternative to BBC World. It appears to be a well run outfit and, importantly, gives an alternative angle. Most of the people accusing it of extreme bias have never watched it.
Paraglider, I don't believe that a private individual in Scotland can own a chimpanzee or raise it as a child at home.
But just to show that the prohibitions are not limited to this tiny sphere of activity, let's try a few other things:
In Scotland, is a private individual entitled to design, build and fly his own plane? Missile launcher? Hand grenade? Submarine? Spaceship?
If you own land, do you own all the minerals underneath the land? Are you entitled to mine them any way you like? If a stream runs through your land, is the silt at the bottom your own?
In Scotland, can you found your own religion and proselytize? Can you then license people to perform marriage ceremonies? Are you allowed to solicit contributions at the airport?
In Scotland, if you want to build a house, can you build it yourself? Can you design it yourself, without hiring an architect? Can you make it conform to your own tastes and structural preferences, without asking permission of anyone?
In Scotland, if you want to clone a sheep or a human being, can you just do it at home without asking permission of anyone, and then announce it to the world?
Now, at one time or another, all these things were doable in the US, at a time when most of them were already prohibited elsewhere. These are all essentially property rights.
OK then,here is my original question. A question I believed to be relative to this hub and quite sensible.
Paraglider, Great hub by the way. How do you feel about the expulsion of Al Jazeera from Iraq and the censorship it has received from not only the Iraqi government but from other Nations not happy with the way it covers certain events? Is this a case where you believe in restrictions on the press or do you think they have the right to complete protections such as they would have received here in the United States?
Sufidreamer - Thanks for the comment. I agree the AJ English Channel is up there with BBC World and CNN International as a serious voice in the arena. But if I were on staff there I would not be at liberty to discuss its business publicly (the same applies to BBC staff - all broadcasters look after their public image). Therefore, as a contractor, I would prefer not to discuss my client's business. Sorry about that :)
Understood!
DK5 - thanks for that. Iraq is in a state of war and as Aya said, the occupying force will do what it can to control the media. The expulsion is regretable but comes as no surprise. By its nature, international broadcasting (and the Internet) is a form of 'invasion'. Since the earliest days, countries have jammed incoming signals they don't approve of. In most cases, such censorship is counterproductive. As to your last point, I don't accept it. Already, they have not received complete protection in the US.
Aya - I don't know the specific answers to all these questions, but private chimp ownership I'd think is allowed. Certainly many people have 'exotic' animals and everything except cruelty is allowed.
There are societies of private rocket engineers who meet to launch their experiments. Of course you have to obey air space regulations but I'm sure that's true in US too.
There is total freedom of religion, which includes starting your own if you want to.
My uncle designed and built his own house on his own plot. More recently, planning regs have become tighter.
I don't know about mineral rights, sorry.
Sheep-cloning would have been legal before anyone had thought of doing it. Once a precedent is set, governments anywhere have to decide whether to allow or forbid it.
Fascinating topic, hub, and exchanges in the comments.
At least in the US, a lot of people mistake "freedom of speech" to meaning right to a sympathetic audience. A lot of people thought Don Imus's firing (he made a racist comment about female basketball players) was an infringement on his right to free speech. They weren't aware that the right simply protects him from being jailed by the government; it does not protect him from an employer dismissing him, from sponsors from ending their contracts with him, etc.
At any rate, I don't know the specifics, but I don't believe the US "owns" the term, and there are probably several instances of US government authorities overstepping the law and restricting speech. But, as Aya said, the Constitution prevents Congress from enacting laws that restrict free speech; it can't prevent the government from violating the law.
Livelonger - that's an excellent observation about confusing freedom of speech with the 'right to a sympathetic audience'. Thanks for the insight. At 100+ comments in just over a week, clearly this is a topic that people feel involved with!
It is great topic,
Only good things can come from something that creates genuine and original thought. Thank you for your support.
TMG
Thanks TMG. One of the interesting things (for me) about writing this was finding my views on the subject largely aligned with Enoch Powell's even though politically we'd be miles apart.
LOL Dave, I voted unsure on both, mainly because I am not convinced that such thing as an "absolute right" exists or ever existed...
Misha - neither am I! Sometimes it's good to question these things.
Just want to let you know that I wrote a new hub. I mentioned you and this hub in it and linked it up.
Hi Sir D - I'll check it out now :)
The argument to me is like saying the world is not fair. If the world were 100% absolutely fair we'd all pay for every error and mistake we made. We'd never grow by learning from our mistakes.
I do believe that free speech must be the right of a free people but that one needs to be both tolerant and honest when one speaks. So, if someone says something I find offensive I am tolerant and if I say something that offends another I am allowed to be honest in my speech. Trouble is, we can't have it both ways, it seems. Cartoons mocking, say Mohammed, incite violence and naming a U.S. warship Corpus Cristi makes the ironic connection that the body of christ and a ship meant for killing people have something in common.
Someone is regularly offended all of the time when free speech is allowed. I say, too bad. Get over it. The world is not a fair place after all. So, what?
Good hub.
Ivan - thanks for commenting. My position is fairly centrist on this. For example, I don't want official or unofficial police controlling what folk say, but I also don't expect to be the state's highest defense priority if I say something that gets me into serious trouble.
In Spain, at least where I live, political correctness does not exist. People say things they believe and you just accept that this is how they believe. I found that odd when I first moved here several decades ago, but I got used to it and now when I argue (discuss) I am not shy. I believe that in the U.S. political correctness is seen as either a curse or a blessing, depending on which side of an issue people dwell.
That's true, but the debate about free speech is older than political correctness and will outlive it too.
Very true. Thanks!
nicely written
excellent hub....and a telling question. I will have to think on my response. After all any speech carries a cost, and we have to be able to afford it's price. MFB III
Hi MFB - thanks for visiting. You're welcome to take your time and contribute later!
Nice post,
a successful topic, you got the response. Here goes mine,
I picked up a little about this idea of common courtesy, the religion and politics spiel I got from my parents also. What if we still lived with that ideal? What if the exposure of corruption in our many institutions had never occured. It is all well and good to defend your religious rights but what then of those who choose do defend by the old tried method of attack? I believe Christ did exist. I wear a crucifix and have a Christian inspired tattoo on my right arm for the world to see. However, I do not consider myself a Christian. I do not believe that Christ was the son of God, no more so than we are all children of God. I do not believe the Church, be that Catholic, Protestant or any other derivitave, to be the keepers of the law under God. Christ was put to death so the story goes for his beliefs. From the bible, I paraphrase, Christ died for his rejection of the laws, he spoke against the pharises and the tax collectors. Christ took his freedom to speech to the bone and to his death. It is my belief and that through my personal study of the bible, that Christ was put to death my the Church and his true message has been lost. I view the Christian faith as no more than a continuation of the wrongs Christ fought to highlight and denote. I am certainly no scholar on Islam, however, I see the Muslim faith in much the same light, I do not care enough to study the Quran but I would like to believe that followers of any religious faith, in good spirit, believe for the sake of self preservation. It is easier to follow than to lead. Should we have freedom to say what we like, yes. Should any and every person have that freedom? yes? What if we have different opinions and we feel so strongly we must fight. Different story, slippery slope.
Bovine Currency (interesting name) thanks for commenting. Freedom of speech exists even where if exercised it can have dire consequences. One of the problems is people's inability to distinguish between knowledge and belief. It's rare for people to come to blows over knowledge. But they will fight over beliefs precisely because they can't accept that they can't know they are true.
We agree then.
On a further note, I consider knowledge as system of belief, proven by action and experience, our beliefs put to practice and cemented not only by consensus (for some, largely based on consensus) but also by the structure of reasoning. Knowledge is like a science, the possibility of any of its parts being false and thus the sum being a house of cards. Such is my faith and my resting on freedom.
I'd prefer to consider knowledge as a body of theoretically disprovable but not yet disproved conjecture. And as such, it is not a system of belief, but the result-space of a system of inquiry. Belief is not necessary.
hi Paraglider! I always thought that you cant really have absolute free speech. Even if it is a right, politeness is still a virtue because everybody deserves to be respected. There is a price of giving it as a right like in the US.
I am just thinking of a small family unit that everybody have their own opinion and they can voice it out too, but being rude and disrespectful is never a good virtue!
Greetings PDH :) I agree that calling it a right was never intended as carte blanche for the worst sort of rudeness and bigotry. It was intended to protect people from persecution for stating a position. These days, many people seem intent on abusing their privilege.
pgrundy says:
12 months ago
Thank you for writing this. The part I like best is where you say the U.S. Constitution is "...too firmly tied to a time and an intellectual landscape that have passed away."
I tend to think that free speech should be preserved. But then, as you point out here, you are able to preserve it perfectly well in the UK without also making it a right.
Perhaps the problem is more one of manners and good sense, both of which seem to be short supply in the U.S. these days. There was a time when most decent people wouldn't say certain things out of respect and politeness. People didn't want to seem rude or pushy and so they kept many of their opinions to themselves voluntarily. For instance, I was raised (a hundred years ago) to regard religion and sex as impolite topics of public conversation, and also that it was rude to comment in any way on someone's physical appearance.
Now however, it is not uncommon for near-strangers to volunteer their opinions on what other people should eat, wear, think, and believe--even when they haven't been invited to share those opinions, even when they've been repeatedly asked to mind their own business. We seem to be on some kind of mind-everybody-else's business rampage here lately--maybe because we have so little control over our own. But a lot of the unpleasantness could be alleviated if people just got a clue about how to act around others.
Great hub, Paraglider. Thanks.