| Freedom of speech has been said to be the foundation of modern democracy, and a fundamental part of the Western civilization. According to statistics, pretty much everyone claims to support freedom of speech. The claimed support of freedom of speech is widespread even amongst Muslims, of whom over 90% support it[1]. However, I'm positive that the numbers would be different if the question was whether it should be legal to draw cartoons about the prophet Muhammad. This reveals the unfortunate fact that even though almost everyone claims to support freedom of speech, their definition of freedom of speech is quite restricted. This is of course something that not only Muslims do, but almost everyone. In this text I will define the framework to achieve what I like to call absolute freedom of speech. Even it will have a limited restriction, but only because of the current technological level of our society. I believe with sufficient technology absolute freedom of speech will be possible indeed. I do not know a single nation that does not “guarantee freedom of speech” in their constitution. It is included in pretty much any EU country, in the US, in China and even in North Korea. This shows that the word itself is pretty meaningless, since the custom is to claim to have freedom of speech and still have a widespread censorship system in place. This applies to Western nations too, not only to countries like North Korea where the situation is abhorrent. By freedom of speech in this context I do not only mean speech, but information in any media, be it a sound recording, a picture or a video. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow even the crazy, disgusting information to be made available. Some people have the skewed view that freedom of speech should only allow the mutually agreed, fun beliefs, and not the disgusting and offending stuff. But such a view is against the whole idea of freedom. This doesn't mean that a support of freedom of speech should agree with beliefs like racism or Neo-Nazism. One has the whole right to fight against an idea or ideology, but the point is to not fight them by making thoughts illegal. The proper way to fight them is with the freedom of expression, rational discussion and debating. German has ironically banned Neo-Nazism, using the same tactics that Nazis used themselves. The restrictions in Western nations are widespread. However, as I said earlier, the information that is banned is often disgusting, but even such information should be allowed. For example, there is a community in the internet who like to collect and share pictures and videos of violent nature, often showing dead people and gory accidents. Even if this is disgusting to some, it should be allowed. Some countries have naturally tried to ban it, like German. According to the prime minister of Finland, Matti Vanhanen, such information is illegal in Finland too[2]. Violent material, like violent video games or movies have often attracted supporters of censorship. Some games in German and Australia are banned when they were deemed too violent. Modifications like green blood are often applied in such countries to get past the censorship board. The reason for this censorship is usually that playing these games make children violent. Although some studies seem to indicate a small correlation, this is a not proper argument for censorship. The human right for freedom of expression overrides this claim, as freedom as a concept often has a price. If a civilization starts to censorship all material that has a correlation with 'immoral' behaviour, they would have to censor a large chunk of information available, everything from critically acclaimed books to heavy metal songs. Racism is something that also attracts hordes of politically correct censorship supporters. Although such speech is mostly secured in the U.S (if it does not directly call for violence against people), the situation is worse in the EU. An EU directive was recently passed that makes it illegal to incite hatred against a particular race among other things[3]. This law can the be applied to sweep away racist websites and organisations, which already happens in a number of EU countries. Belgium banned a Flemish nationalist party, even when it had a popularity of 24%. The same EU directive also banned “grossly trivializing genocide”, effectively banning any historical research which might conclude something other than the 'official truth' defined the by the state. Holocaust denial was already banned in many European countries before this law, and now will be illegal in all EU states. An acclaimed historian David Irving was prisoned in Austria for his thought crime of 'identifying with the Germany Nazi Party', although the real reason was writing a book with wrong conclusions regarding the Holocaust. I've showed that censorship is widespread in Western nations, but I would like to show one more example of a disgusting information which should be allowed just like any other information you disagree with. For example, take the reasoning behind the banning of violent crimes: “Violent games should be banned because they create violence”. Now, lets switch the words for the argument against an other type of information: “Child pornography should be banned because they create child abuse.” Although child pornography is extremely disgusting, it is not to be excluded like a dogma from the freedom of expression. First of all, child rapists should be hunted like any other criminal for their crime of child abuse. This does not mean that the actual video tape of such act should be illegal! It is like saying that a video tape of a terrorist attack should be illegal. Even though it does not matter whether or not these films create child abuse (meaning that the viewers supposedly will turn into child rapists), there is scientific study done that shows the link between pornography and rapes. It turns out that the more pornography is made available, the less rape is committed[5]. Legalising child porn might actually decrease child abuse. It would also make it possible to create child porn without hurting any child using film techniques like computer-generated imagery. Having widespread censorship system to fight child porn also makes it easier to ban other information. First it is child porn, then it is violent material, then it is racism and so forth, the list continues. Finally just offending or criticising someone is made illegal. This is of course called libel, where you cannot make so called 'wrong facts', and leaving it to the justice system to define the 'official truth'. This is of course used to silence critics of movies, restaurants, religions or large corporations. It is more widespread in the EU than the US, since the constitution of US is based on the idea of freedom of speech. I define absolute freedom of speech to create any information available. A practical example of this would be an internet server, that would serve information to anyone who requests it. To define it this way, things like spamming and shouting in public are not covered by freedom of speech, since it forces people to receive information. The current technological level however creates one restriction. The only restriction that I believe can be accepted is information which ricks the destruction of the whole human civilization. There is no philosophical justification for this, only practical ones. If we want to survive the next 100 years, some information ought to be banned. These might include instructions to create extremely powerful weapons. However, it must be pointed out that this restriction only applies for now. When we will have advanced enough technology, this restriction can be removed, since anyone trying to create those weapons can be prevented using high technology. There are several practical objections made by people against absolute freedom of speech. One is that if freedom is absolute, people could just print fake money. However, I defined freedom of speech only to make information available, so it would be legal to post pictures of money on a website, not to print them and break a contract between the state and a person. Another concern is privacy. I support privacy, and agree that breaking into somebody's house should be illegal. If that does happen and the information leaks out, people should be able to share that information freely though. The breaking into the house is the real crime committed. In a similar objection, a bank worker breaks the law if he uploads private information to his web server, since he had signed a contract with the bank not do that. However, once the information is downloaded it can be freely shared. In practice, it is also impossible to destroy information once it has been leaked out. What then prevents somebody from creating a robot, that reads an internet site and acts according to commands posted there? Well, the person controlling the robot through the website is not breaking any law, but whoever created the dangerous robot in the first place is. Some people also say that rich people can just post death threats with a price to his web server. If anyone follows such threats the killer is obviously responsible for the death. To prevent this kind of practice the proper solution is to have better technology to prevent and catch crime, not to restrict freedom of speech. Would it then legal to post a computer virus to a web server? Yes, it would. Whoever downloads the computer virus and activates it is responsible for any damage created by that computer. The real solution is again proper computer security, not restricting freedom of speech. Computer viruses (and the source code to them) are even now freely available in the net. Freedom of speech is something that most people claim to support, but are actually supporters of censorship and thought crime. The first kinds of information to be censored are naturally the nasty and disgusting things, not things that the majority of people agree with. A small censorship law unfortunately creates a slippery slope leading to larger censorship, and the progress in the last few decades in Western nations is not something to be proud about. If censorship is not fought against it tends to always increase. Sources: 1.Who Speaks for Islam?, John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed 2.Selvitys: Web-sensuuri saa kannatusta puoluejohtajilta, Tietokone 3.EU adopts measure outlawing Holocaust denial, International Herald Tribune 4.Blow to Belgium's far right, BBC News 5.Northwestern Univ. Law Professor: Porn decreases rape, Mark Kernes "In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict | |
| Benkei Mr Fahrenheit  Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Feb 06, 2004 Location: Netherlands Total Topics: 90 Total Posts: 3183 |  #2 You raise some interesting points. Are you familiar with Mill's On Liberty? I more or less agree with his take on things that the limitation of the freedom of speech is where it leads to harm of others. Incitement to violence and such should therefore not be tolerated. The Belgium right-wing party was disbanded because of this and quickly reinstated under a different name. The ideas did not change but the wording did and they continue to exist to this day (I always confuse the old and new name but they are: Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok). Equally, child pornography should not be readily available because of the possible consequences. Do not forget that these children did not have sex willingly and imagine the social and psychological damage it would do if their classmates obtained copies, for instance. Most adult pornography is made by consenting adults but even there, when they are unconsenting, these victims should be protected. And certain groups of people are too vulnerable to be exposed to all forms of speech. Think of children and mentally challenged people. So I would consider regulation of the access to information (in its broadest sense) for certain groups of people essential. Access to gory deaths is widely accepted as not being healthy to them. (I remember seeing the black-and-white King Kong when I was 6 and was absolutely horrified. Imagine what a "faces of death" DVD had done with me.) Nevertheless, I do agree with your criticism in general that censorship is more widespread in Western Europe than generally accepted by the population, simply because it is in line with generally accepted notions of right and wrong. Le ridicule ne tue pas! |
| rabeldin Probabalistic Philosopher  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 06, 2003 Location: Puerto Rico Total Topics: 29 Total Posts: 5427 | #3 As a mathematical strategy, generalization can be profitable, but in dealing with legal and moral doctrines, I tend to suspect that generalization leads to impractical and inefficient doctrines. This is a case in point. "Freedom of speech" should not be generalized to "all information". Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a classical example of when freedom of speech needs to be curtailed for the common good. The limited number of exits guarantees that the risk of harm is so great as to make the shout irresponsible. Providing information on how to build weapons of mass destruction to a sociopath is another example. If we could accurately distinguish the mentally ill from mentally healthy, we could run the risk of publishing details on weapons. However, our diagnostic capability is extremely limited. Someone who manifests mental illness today may not do so tomorrow. This makes censorship of this information useful (to cover up our diagnostic inability). "Freedom of Information" laws are intended to provide a means for challenging particular cases of censorship. I believe that we need this kind of detailed challenge and response process for all processes where "freedom of speech" or "freedom to publish" are involved. Sometimes we will assert blanket freedoms and make adjustments when abuses occur. Other cases will involve prior censorship with a process to challenge the censor's judgment. Leave no assumption unquestioned. |
| Lord Drivel rambler Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 29, 2006 Total Topics: 6 Total Posts: 287 | #4 Freedom of speech should be absolute or it is not freedom of speech. This is the fundamental bastion of democracy, the last one standing but actually now teetering, as it is being pecked away at by a horde of loathsome pervs who want it dismantled. Unfortunately the future does not look bright for freedom of speech or democracy. |
| Louis Initiate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 17, 2008 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 7 | #5 Freedom of speech, and Freedom? We're free to verbally express feelings, in the appropriate setting, totally legal. Acting on your opinion is something different. "Freedom" is conditional, for obvious reasons. |
| Baekho Existential Maverick  Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 07, 2008 Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 5 | #6 rabeldin wrote: As a mathematical strategy, generalization can be profitable, but in dealing with legal and moral doctrines, I tend to suspect that generalization leads to impractical and inefficient doctrines. This is a case in point. "Freedom of speech" should not be generalized to "all information". Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a classical example of when freedom of speech needs to be curtailed for the common good. The limited number of exits guarantees that the risk of harm is so great as to make the shout irresponsible. I couldn't agree with you more, rabeldin---I was also thinking of the classic example of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre. And what about outright lies? Should we allow people to publish out and out falsehoods, claiming they are true? And I don't think that "absolute freedom" was ever a foundational principle of any system of democracy----governments by their nature concern themselves with restrictions. And like it or not, some restrictions are necessary. All things being equal (i.e. in the abscence of extenuating circumstances), your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins----end of story! The same goes for freedom of speech. Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistant one. --Albert Einstein |
| nawitus Transhumanist  Usergroup: Members Joined: May 27, 2006 Total Topics: 16 Total Posts: 262 | #7 Baekho wrote: I couldn't agree with you more, rabeldin---I was also thinking of the classic example of shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre. I defined freedom of speech in my text to make information available for example in a web server, not to shout in public. Baekho wrote: And what about outright lies? Should we allow people to publish out and out falsehoods, claiming they are true? If there is a law that makes it illegal to say "lies", we are infact creating an offical truth defined by the state. In Communist countries the truth would of course be Communism, and anyone criticizing it would be "lying". Baekho wrote: And I don't think that "absolute freedom" was ever a foundational principle of any system of democracy----governments by their nature concern themselves with restrictions. I don't think I ever claimed that. I did say that the constitution of US makes freedom of speech a high priority, hence it has effects in the laws of the US compared to other nations. Baekho wrote: And like it or not, some restrictions are necessary. All things being equal (i.e. in the abscence of extenuating circumstances), your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins----end of story! The same goes for freedom of speech. My whole point was that restrictions are generally unnecessary. I also agree that there are limits to rights like moving a fist in the public, but I do not see the connection to freedom of speech. Nobody would be forced to view any material they do not want to in my ideal system. If your point was that humans have a right not to "be offended", that throws away the whole freedom of speech, since anything from violent movies to cartoons would be banned if they would offend someone (and this is sadly happening in many countries). Edited by nawitus on Mar 8, 2008 - 12:14 PM "In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict |
| keda Ijon Tichy  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 25, 2005 Location: Finland Total Topics: 40 Total Posts: 4240 | #8 When you shout fire in a crowded theathre you are not just exercising your freedom of speech, but you are also either a) lying and causing a lot of problems for the theathre owner and the people that wasted their money to get to see the movie or b) telling the truth and saving the people. But its really the theathre's responsibility to place such restrictions through agreement and not the government i.e you agree on not to shout fire in the threathre unless the emergency is real when you pay to see the movie. The violation is not of free speech, but that agreement. If you have the government imposing such restrictions, then its coersion, and not consensus. All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer |
| rabeldin Probabalistic Philosopher Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 06, 2003 Location: Puerto Rico Total Topics: 29 Total Posts: 5427 | #9 Lord Drivel wrote: Freedom of speech should be absolute or it is not freedom of speech. This is the fundamental bastion of democracy, the last one standing but actually now teetering, as it is being pecked away at by a horde of loathsome pervs who want it dismantled. Unfortunately the future does not look bright for freedom of speech or democracy. Freedom of speech is less important than freedom of thought. The latter surely must be absolute. The former should be subject to the thinker's judgment as to whether the speech helps or harms a situation. In the face of a naive government that wants to supress freedom of thought by intimidation, exercising our freedom of speech with good judgment is important. Our disdain for the authors of the destruction of liberty must be expressed in twp syllable words since anything else would go over their heads. Leave no assumption unquestioned. |
| unrealist42 Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 06, 2003 Location: City of Dreams Total Topics: 13 Total Posts: 2761 | #10 While shouting fire in a theatre is certainly a dangerous activity, is it really analgous to other forms of speech that are not so immediately dangerous and give time for reflection and reason and considered action? I think not. This "shouting fire in a theatre" has gone way to far in its justification for restrictions on speech. A reasonable person would take stock of a situation before reacting emotionally but that is disregarded in this analogy so forwarding any argument to ban "offensive or dangerous" speech on this basis is facile and disingenuos. When misinformation is banned it cannot be refuted except in the most general and oblique way. Banning speech not only disarms the speaker but also those who could put forth reasonable and considered arguments against it. |
| unicorn_smells Initiate  Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 11, 2008 Location: malaysia Total Topics: 1 Total Posts: 3 | #11 Hello, I think the simple reason why there isn't absolute freedom of speech is because if one speaks freely of everything there would be two extreme consequences: 1. People have the tendency to tell untruths and spread them. 2. Damages the reputation of others. And it is the latter that the law of defamation safeguards against and the idea of an entire world rampant with incorrect information without the duty to correct it is quite a nightmare. So the people that have spoken before me I find quite spot on really. But yeah I came from a country where our sms's and telephone calls are monitored during elections. So freedom of speech does seem like a distant dream here and it'd be nice to have a bit of that. Edited by hyena in petticoat on Mar 11, 2008 - 10:51 PM. Reason: Capitalization. |
| Alekhine Assistant Professor  Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 20, 2007 Location: Over the Line Total Topics: 23 Total Posts: 458 | #12 I am a staunch supporter of absolute freedom of speech. It is my opinion that the freedom to think and express one's thoughts to others is an essential part of being a human. I think that the suppression of one's right to expression should be considered a heinous crime against humanity. To restrict one's freedom of expression is to restrict their humanness. Meh |
| yasashii Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 11 | #13 You should not need freedom of speech. Because you should not have anything foolish to say. Do not speak your mind. Gather your thoughts and place them into words. |
| nawitus Transhumanist Usergroup: Members Joined: May 27, 2006 Total Topics: 16 Total Posts: 262 | #14 unicorn_smells wrote: Hello, I think the simple reason why there isn't absolute freedom of speech is because if one speaks freely of everything there would be two extreme consequences: 1. People have the tendency to tell untruths and spread them. 2. Damages the reputation of others. And it is the latter that the law of defamation safeguards against and the idea of an entire world rampant with incorrect information without the duty to correct it is quite a nightmare. So the people that have spoken before me I find quite spot on really. But yeah I came from a country where our sms's and telephone calls are monitored during elections. So freedom of speech does seem like a distant dream here and it'd be nice to have a bit of that. First of all, the world is already full of incorrect information. Secondly, if the state is given the power to decide the "real truth", it will lead to supression of truth, since the state is not some kind of perfect system, and even if the state is a democracy, the majority is very often wrong in factual information. In the United States for example, the state might vote that the world is only 6000 years old, since the percentage who believes so is really close to 50%. It is a dangerous business to outlaw "lies", since by definition that requires a "committee of truths", which for humans will end up in a disaster. Already critics of restaurants for example are getting sued for libel in Western countries. "In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict |
No comments:
Post a Comment