How Free Should Speech Be - Essay Example

Essay, Philosophy Topic How Free Should Speech Be? The land where freedom of speech is guaranteed to every individual is considered as heaven on Planet Earth. Freedom of speech is one of the important features of a liberal society. As per this principle, each individual is allowed to articulate one’s opinion on any topic, go to the public areas and initiate discussions on them, without intimidation or harassment. This is the ideal situation but the ground realities are different and even in countries that practice the most liberal democratic system, some restrictions are imposed on the freedom of speech to stall human rights violations, when this right is used to promote violence and hatred against others. The interests of state security is supreme and the rights of the individuals are secondary and as such they need to be understood and evaluated in tandem with requirements of public order and for protecting the dignity of others. In the articles “Free Speech for Me, but not For Thee” Nat Hantoff and in “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion (Part 2)” John Stuart Mill discuss, among others, freedom of speech as applicable in the area of religion and politics, besides some other segments of the society. For example, religious vilification needs to be banned, as otherwise it may lead to clashes on the basis of belief systems. Even the atheists must have the freedom to propound their viewpoints. Any aggressive disposition on this front by the religious communities needs to be curbed to maintain societal peace and the freedom of speech needs to be used by the concerned communities in a responsible manner so that religious sentiments of followers of other belief systems are not hurt. It is difficult to differentiate between positive criticism and religious denigration in some cases. As constructive criticism usually involves both positive and negative annotations, it is possible that the same may be understood as provocation by followers of a particular religion. In America freedom of speech is the constitutional guarantee. Nat Hantoff writes, “But nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that freedom of speech is limited only to ideas and symbols that further freedom, dignity and nonviolence.”(49) Freedom of speech remains the pivotal assurance for the American society given by the founders of the constitution. Freedom of speech is like the double-edged sword and it is the twice-blessed responsibility. It blesses the receiver and it blesses the giver. Often the authorities have to walk on the razor’s edge to enforce the provisions of the freedom of speech, when interests and cross interests of the different communities are involved. As such it is necessary to understand the scope of the word ‘freedom’ in the correct perspective. Its connotation also varies from one area to another. Philosophical freedom includes the ability to make choices without limitations, while political freedom is the state of being free to practice the choice of one’s political philosophy. Nat Hantoff quotes Aryeh Neier, “As a Jew, and a refugee from Nazi Germany, I have strong personal reasons for finding the Nazis repugnant. Freedom of speech protects my right to denounce Nazis with all the vehemence I think proper. Despite my hatred of their vicious doctrine, I realize that it is in my interest to defend their right to preach it.” (p. 52) Many positive developments have taken place in the area of freedom of speech for an individual or for a group of individuals professing and practicing identical ideals. There was a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for just airing one’s views. With no freedom of speech and expression for an individual, one was forced to agree and accept what the leaders of the society prescribed. Thus the freedom of speech which is innate in our lives, has been achieved though the sacrifices and struggles of the previous generations. John Stuart Mill is the strong defender of freedom of speech. In “Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion” he writes, “But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. (1) Political correctness of freedom of speech is a delicate issue and it shall always remain the subject matter of arguments and counterarguments. Most of the politicians have motivated desires and seek to impose uniformity of rules and regulations to control their subjects. People who transgress the limitations imposed as for speech and actions are liable to be punished under such regimes. Mill articulates, granting that the popular opinion is true, even then the process of debate is essential, and as otherwise it will become “dead dogma.” For the acceptance of truth, one must know for and against arguments about it. People should be in a position to understand the truth fully and should also be in a position to counter arguments of those who take a stand against it. Dissent, when it is proved false, goes to support the truth further. Mill writes “the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. (3) This argument may be further elucidated by a simple analogy. Unless one knows what darkness is, one cannot fully appreciate the merits of light. People should have opinions based on unassailable grounds and they should have the solid reasons to counter the prejudices. Differing opinions are possible, but to get at the truth, one of the arguments has to be swept under the carpet with correct reasoning. Responding to objections is an important function in the quest for truth. Arguments and counter- arguments are part of the free speech, if they are conducted without malice and the objectives of both the parties is one of inquisitiveness to get at the truth. Mill writes, “Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.”(6) Thus he keeps the people continuously on the edge and advises them not to be lethargic in their pursuit to get at the truth. The issue of curbing speech needs to be handled with noble individuals, who have the genuine concern for welfare of the society. The borderline for curbing is difficult to demarcate, and it may vary as per the situations obtaining at a particular time in a country. This can be further clarified through two independent analogies. Curbing the freedom of an individual to make use of the highways needs to be with respect to the demands about the movement of traffic. An individual is part of the total discipline of traffic rules. He needs to cross the road at the given point like zebra crossings and cannot stand at the middle of the road, on the plea that it is an act of exercising freedom. Others too have freedom and one’s interests should not clash with those of others. During wartimes a citizen needs to be extra careful about his speech and he cannot articulate views that are detrimental to the security of the country. If the government curbs the right to speech during peacetime, that government must be having some hidden political agenda. Nat Hantoff writes “And once the concept of curbing speech is established, those enemies, each time the state suppresses speech, will have moved closer to their goal of destroying free speech.”(50) This happens in a country that is administered on the basis of totalitarian ideologies. “How free should speech be?” is a dynamic concept, but it has a destructive side as well, when the so-called free speech is delivered with an element of vilification and coercion. Certain political ideologies render only lip service to the concept of free speech and engage in propaganda war. Since no one will be allowed to counter that propaganda, their version of free speech will be accepted as truth by the people and with this the process of degeneration of the society begins. Free speech must have the ingredient of truth. Even the true opinion, about which there is no contention, must be debated, to enable the opinion to remain alive and kicking. The opinions and beliefs need to be reflected in the conduct of the people and the people need to understand the significance of the doctrine which is dear to their hearts. Mill writes, “However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”(21) Discussion assumes continuity of the truthful argument. If there is no discussion, everything remains standstill, with no charm left in the subject. Dissenters are the real supporters for an issue. With such dissent, new dimensions will come to the fore and new directions to get at the truth will be known. Most of the dissenters are ignorant about the substance of the issue in the sense that they know only the partial truth. Their questions are likely to open new horizons and expand the scope of discussions and are likely to become the contributing factors for upholding the truth. People learn and sharpen their wits through debate. Mill puts it succinctly. He writes, “The usefulness of an opinion is itself matter of opinion: as disputable, as open to discussion, and requiring discussion as much, as the opinion itself.” (10)At times the popular view may be totally false and the unpopular view may be partially true. Mill further writes “ As mankind improves, the number of doctrines which are no longer disputed or doubted will be constantly on the increase: and the well-being of mankind may almost be measured by the number and gravity of the truths which have reached the point of being uncontested. (32) Such a position is achieved not by curbing speech but by giving encouragement to free speech. An individual gives his best to himself and to the society under free and unrestricted conditions. Curbs retard the human potential and an individual who functions under compulsion turns out to be the grudging performer, his productivity suffers and he will not be in the proper mental frame of mind to give his best. Unlimited freedom of speech alone will not deliver benefits to the society from all ends. Mill writes, “I do not pretend that the most unlimited use of the freedom of enunciating all possible opinions would put an end to the evils of religious or philosophical sectarianism. (39) Individual and societal transformation depends upon many contending and opposing forces. Such forces do not see eye to eye with each other. There are historical reasons for the type of unrest that cannot be attended to, by granting freedom of speech alone. Mentioning the Stanford Sliding Scale of Free Speech Nat Hantoff writes, “Under this notion that some people deserve more free speech than others, punishment of bad speech is measured by which groups have been more discriminated against over time. Members of these groups get extra free speech.”(58) Thus Hantoff introduces an altogether new element to the subject of free speech. This is not, however, to say that such groups will be able to mitigate their grievances by resorting to more and more free speech, as compared to groups in their rival camps. Nevertheless, they do get a psychological satisfaction, and free speech may help to ameliorate their built-in pressures and members of that group may experience a sense of recognition in the society. Works Cited. Hentoff, Nat. Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee. pp 48-58 Mill, John Stuart (1806–1873). On Liberty. 1869. Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion. pp 1-44 Read More