Others, I am not the first
Have willed more mischief than they durst
Have willed more mischief than they durst
If the thought is father to the deed, and it certainly seems that way to me; and if the deed that is the logical consequence of that thought is immoral or illegal or just plain wrong; then how free should you be to express that thought?
This came up in the discussion over my previous post, with Carolyn Ann wading in in defence of freedom of speech as covered by the US First Amendment. I have difficulty with the notion of total freedom of speech. The Jan Moir piece in the Daily Mail, discussed in that post, is certainly odious and offensive; plain stupid, even; but it's useful in a way, because it's alerted lots of people, myself included, to just how odious and offensive people like Jan Moir are. So it was a useful piece of information, in that sense. I don't imagine she won anyone over with the strength of her case, because it wasn't really a case; it was just a nasty little squib. And I don't suppose any of her intended audience has changed the way they think as a result of the backlash against Jan; they probably think, like her, that it's just an orchestrated campaign by people who haven't even read the article. Well, duh.
Still, as I say, letting her have her say and then responding to her is perhaps the healthiest option. What to do with Ray of Liverpool, though, who commented on the Daily Mail's story about a 'sex-change prostitute' (evidently 'woman' was not enough for the Daily Mail)...
.....Perverts are like irrepairably broken machines. Can't be fixed. Should be disposed of. Rid the world of their defective genome.-this was a comment that had passed the moderation process, remember. (It has since been pulled, as have all comments on that story). Should Ray really be allowed the freedom to say that transssexuals should be murdered? I rather think not, but then I would, wouldn't I?
People don't really change their opinions very much or very easily, so 'debate' is really more about who can shout the loudest. Should we allow anyone to shout whatever they like? There is a quotation that usually gets dragged out at times like this, and usually attributed to Voltaire; "I may not like what you write, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I've always had problems with that idea. I certainly have no desire to defend to the death, the right of people whom I dislike to say detestable things. Because then I'd be dead and they'd still be saying detestable things. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong in that relationship, from my point of view at least.
Another problem with the idea is the assumptions behind it. It seems to presuppose that the speaker is in a position of power, and is granting permission to the detested party to say what they like. Imagine instead the position of an isolated minority being subjected to verbal abuse from the majority around them. How do you think the persecutors in this relationship would react to their victims coming out with the Voltairean line? -Heave half a brick, I should imagine.
I watched a BBC Panorama programme last night, filmed on a Bristol estate about a mile from where I live. Two reporters, British moslems, lived undercover for eight weeks, and recorded the acts of verbal and physical abuse that they experienced on a daily basis. It was truly shocking. On the plus side, two of the perpetrators have had their collars felt by the police, for an attempted mugging and an assault. On the other hand, so many of the persecutors behaved so very badly, and despite being named (not, presumably, shamed) have got away with it.
And this evening, Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, and himself a man with a conviction for incitement to racial hatred, will be appearing on the BBC.
Freedom of Speech..
ReplyDeleteGosh, what a tricky one.
The first point to make is that, technically, we ALL have total freedom of speech. We can say whatever we want, wherever we want, whenever we want.
What we CAN'T do is guarantee that there will be no consequences for exercising that "physical" right.
Jan Moir and others like her often complain that they are being denied freedom of speech, when others dare to criticise them for expressing their poisonous views.
But they are not being denied freedom of speech; they are experiencing it. They have had their say using that right, and now others can criticise them and their views, using that same right.
This is also how one deals with the BNP, by argument, and not by trying to outdo them with violence. To my mind, the BNP and the SWP/UAF thugs outside the BBC are two sides of the same coin. Both are anti-democratic, and both are a dire threat to free speech and liberal values.
chrissie
xxxxxxx
A good point, Chrissie. I've left out all sorts of other stuff too, because I was in a hurry. Not entirely sure whether this is a question I should be addressing on the blog, as it is tending to the meta, and I think blogging should be more about a personal perspective. It's that thar Carolyn Ann's fault. Normal service, etc....
ReplyDeleteIt's not so much freedom of speech but who decides who has it and about what.
ReplyDeleteHi Ladies,
ReplyDeleteKate Middleton, here, a contemporary of Richard Beard's at Radley College. It was there that I made my first attempt at transition in 1982 with the support of some of the boys. 'Maybe you could be a Bond girl?'
I was subsequently sent to the Warneford bin for counselling where I was attacked by Deenesh Khoosal and eventually tried to kill myself in my study because of him.
In 2005, I discovered he is now a specialist in what he calls 'males with Gender dysphoria' and cried for three days.
In 2007, I went to the police during the Reid trial after discovering from Russell that patient aka Paul/Paula Rowe has been making a living out of sex change regret stories. I also have a complaint in at the GMC and you can read that and a letter to David Batty of the Guardian on my blog:
http://katemiddletonlsu.blogspot.com.html
I am appalled by that comment about that poor young woman was murdered being allowed through moderation.
I have told the Daily Mail that Richard Green is a supporter of Man/ Boy love and is trying to normalise child sex abuse an they have ignored me. Check out the North American man boy love site for details and tell everyone!
They also did not allow a comment of mine through about how Hampshire police had openly compared my treatment with an 18 year old who had been raped and subsequently committed suicide. I suppose dead girls cannot defend themselves. Evil arrogant men can.
So much for freedom of speech. Any one who wants to see conditions improve - I almost died - please give some feedback on my blog. Could save some woman from an awful fate
Another good point, Anji.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the link to your blog, Kate.
Thanks Dru,
ReplyDeleteI went out on a limb and 'outed' myself at great personal risk in 2007 because I couldn't bear to think of anyone else going through what I have gone through over this over a life time.
My decision to do this has been justified by the exposure of two kids on the front page of The Sun.
I have spoken out against this utube and also have a film which you can find on utube 'Kate Middleton on Human Rights Abuses' in which I discuss being tortured and given behaviour modification.
One recently went to the pub and announced that one has a new subscriber to one's videos ...
A friend interrupted and said, are you a member of the Royal Family now, Kate?'
I said that someone seems to think so because my video now appears on the selection of a lady who likes Kate Middleton...'because she's fierce ...like Princess Diana!'
I wonder if she's watched the film!
Well done with the book. I think it is probabley the best on the subject since Conundrum & will do a review soon as I have said on Richard's blog. What is it with Tilley hats?
Please everyone distribute the information and on the topic of the press read my letter to David Batty about his false story to which I am awaiting a response
If it has been decided that the obnoxious cannot be heard, then who is in charge of deciding what is obnoxious? Or heinous?
ReplyDeleteHumans haven't changed in the slightest since the 1770's; or 1689 when the English Parliament passed its Bill of Rights.
In America, prior to the Revolution, there was a lot of official sanction of certain churches (Rhode Island being a very strange exception). This resulted in certain forms of worship being illegal: if you disagreed with the State-sponsored or sanctioned church, say over liturgy or the meaning of certain parables, you were out of luck. You could not voice your objections, or your different interpretation. Many states made it illegal to be Catholic, for instance. I think it was Maryland, of all places (it was named after the Virgin Mary, just as Virginia was named after the Virgin Queen Elizabeth), it was illegal for Catholics to reside anywhere in the state!
Connecticut made Congregationalism their official religion; I think they punished Baptists with onerous taxation.
Rhode Island was the one place where a Jew could be a Jew, a Baptist a Baptist and so on. At least until Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.
Just to add to it all, the British decided that certain statements, such as those advocating Revolution, or criticism of the Crown or the Governor, could be punished at will.
One of the reasons people went to war against the British was because of the restriction of religious freedom, and because the British were rather cavalier about rights they granted those Britain, and denied to those in America. Among those rights was the right to petition Parliament, and the right to criticize (with impunity) the Crown. Although, as Thomas Paine found out, the "with impunity" bit was interpreted somewhat in favor of the King...
The Constitution itself says nothing of free speech. It merely describes what the branches of government can (nominally) do or not do. The States were concerned that a powerful Congress would curtail civil rights, so they demanded the Bill of Rights, which they got.
Add it all up, and you have an acknowledgement in The Constitution and the Bill of Rights that people, through their government, will always try to curtail unpopular speech. Whether it's reprehensible (demanding an end to slavery and women wanting the right to vote was once considered reprehensible, heresy, even), or the popular but foolish (e.g. reality shows), society has to be extremely careful about what it considers to be unlawful speech.
-cont-
-continuation-
ReplyDeleteA doctor with an egregiously harmful attitude might be a result - it might seem better to force the doctor to be more agreeable. But what of family planning doctors and clinics in, oh, Oklahoma or South Dakota? If they are forced to abide by what is locally deemed "correct" - they would not be able to perform half of their obligations to their patients. They certainly would not be allowed to advise a woman on abortion! If this seems abstract - the right to an abortion is somewhat allowed in the UK - or because it's so far away and everyone "knows" those places are full of ridiculous fundamentalists, consider what would happen if such persons were allowed to impose their view of what is unlawful speech on others.
Is there a practical, or theoretical, difference between denying someone the right to think racist or anti-Semitic thoughts, and insisting that they not have them? Or be barred from voicing them? Both are horrible, in my opinion. But considering the history of what has been deemed horrible, I think it somewhat better to allow the reprehensible to be voiced, and shown for what it truly is.
That Richard of Liverpool voiced a heinous opinion - but should he be denied the right to say what he thinks? Who gets to decide what is acceptable, and lawful, and what is not? Anti-transgender sentiments are horrible, but if you ban others from saying horrible things about the transgendered, can you also guarantee that you're not rendering the trans community from criticism? Or even simply banning favorable expression, as well?
Freedom of expression is one of the hardest things to consider, I believe. Religion has certain dictates, theology works within a framework; socialism, feminism, conservatism and all the other -isms maintain a certain consistency with themselves. In the end, it is this consistency that renders them obtuse to criticism. Some criticism becomes unacceptable, and in the end it becomes forbidden to say it.
The danger is, and it is a very real danger (consider the rise of evangelism in the UK) that if we ban the outrageous, the horrible or the reprehensible - we also ban the favorable. You simply cannot, in any way, ban one set of expressions without also banning the immediately countering, or the favorable. It is, frankly, impossible to do so.
That's why I think the 1st Amendment such a work of genius. It accepts that people don't change, and that free expression and free thought needs to be defended from the majority. The amazing thing about the 1st Amendment is that it protects the minority from the majority, while simultaneously protecting the majority from a vocal and/or powerful minority. It also proscribes the state from favoring any one faith from any other, or any faith at all.
Trying to build a set of laws that protects groups from being offended is a fools errand. No matter how much the EU Mandarins try to justify their idiocies. People stubbornly remain people - and that needs to be both encouraged, and protected.
Carolyn Ann
Sorry I took so long to reply, Caroline. I do not see things as being clear cut. People can say what they like; there is no impediment to that. If someone doesn't like what they say, then they can attempt to prosecute them, and if it is decided that they were naughty enough, then then they will be punished. And if what they said was deemed not naughty enough, then they'll be let off. It's a very imperfect system, of course, and hinges upon an approximation of what is generally thought of as good or bad. And if the people who administer the law are out of step with the wider populace, then there will be mutterings and agitation for change to the law. Some people may think there is too much repression, some people may think that there isn't enough. Goes with the territory. As I think I said earlier, in as many words, the distinction between a criminal act and the words used to express the intention behind that act is not clear cut.
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of the First Amendment working: Religious Cheerleading
ReplyDelete:-)
As an atheist, I deplore the public display of religion. I consider religion to be an anathema, an oubliette for the soul. But as a First Amendment/Free Expression advocate (fundamentalist?), I applaud the ingenuity of the students: they take their religious flimflam and use the 1st Amendment to further their views. Religion (in America) has benefited from the 1st Amendment (which makes it so odd that many of these individuals want to do away with such protections!); atheism benefits from it, too. Heck, neither atheists nor the Southern Baptists could believe (or not) what they want without the 1st Amendment!
It is not up to society to determine a winner in this fracas via a court of law, or favor one side with sympathetic legislation, it is up to either side to sway minds.
The problem that needs to be decided in this context is "what is evil?" Unfortunately, with this being about people, it's not enough to say you'll know it when you see it. I am considered evil by some Southern Baptists; I consider them a personification of pure evil. I consider religion to be one way of defining evil. Who is right? (I am, of course. :-) )
If I (either individually or through some agent such as the state) can sue to stop someone saying something horrible and offensive, am I safe from such peculiar retribution, myself?
Free expression is not, as you say, an easy topic. It has many problems, more than a few moral quandaries, subtleties that would confound Plato and all who came after, and it can be downright confusing even when it's straightforward. Heck, as this discussion demonstrates - it has cultural considerations, too! (Although it shouldn't have...) Heck even the limit (your right to freely swing your fist, as part of your expression, ends at the tip of my nose) is a compromise. A reasonable one, I'll grant!
Carolyn Ann
Oops. I had a feeling I'd accidentally deleted the final sentence...
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest difference between our positions on what is acceptable expression is how we define the tip of the nose, and how far away from it the limit is. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Phew, I think we are in agreement. How odd! :-)
ReplyDeleteNot to revive a recently deceased quadruped, but I wondered what you thought of the recent Stephen Fry "thing"?
ReplyDeleteI see it as a symptom of Twitter, inanity and a complete lack of maturity. As well as an almost total lack of respect for free expression. As in: "Thou wilt not contradict or differ from what we believe!"
As someone who's been "criticized" for having a different opinion to the "accepted" one, I was quite interested in this whole tea cup tornado. It seems that while the Internet has given some access to an entire world, it has made them more and more provincial, and increasingly intolerant of dissent; never mind dissent: disagreement is, it seems, becoming verboten! (Especially in the UK, and Australia). I can't help but think it's because people do consider it offensive to offend; offensive enough to legislate against causing offense!
Just wondering! :-)
Carolyn Ann