Free Speech - Where do you draw the line?
This is a topic which has been plaguing my mind for the past few months due to a number of events happening around the world and it is one which I have no clear or satisfactory answer to. I am growing up as part of the millennial generation, who is often the butt of people's jokes and criticism, and something we have become known for is our extreme political correctness and ease of being offended. In our eyes, however, we are just humans who believe in equality for all and will do our best to tackle injustice wherever we see it. The line between free speech and hate speech initially seems quite obvious. As soon as it comes to discriminating against someone then it is hate speech, right? However, the more I think about it, the more arbitrary it becomes and the more I notice that people can often shift the line depending on the argument at hand.
Those who are often criticised for their controversial and offensive views use free speech as a way to argue that it is essential in order to give a voice to those silenced by political correctness. However, what happens when those same people use their right to freedom of speech to try and silence and discriminate other people? It seems that at that point, freedom of speech has been taken a step too far and has been used as a platform for hate speech and to preach a regressive agenda.
At the same time, however, is it right to censor and silence views that we (whether 'we' be a small group of people, a council, or a country) simply disagree with or find offensive? How can we claim equality for all when we silence those who express views that are not deemed politically correct? Or perhaps, since free speech is often incited by controversial figures, is 'free speech' a term that should be synonymously used with 'hate speech'? Is free speech just hate speech in disguise and a way to appeal to or challenge those who believe in equality for all?
Despite these controversial views, and what the media portrays to us, there are many people who (scarily) do agree with figures who preach dangerous opinions. Take Donald Trump for example (I know, I am tired about talking about him all the time too now). Trump was often portrayed as a joke candidate to us in the UK, and it seemed he was the underdog in terms of popularity due to his racist, misogynist, and homophobic views. However, Trump obviously did something right and managed to garner enough popularity to win the vote in the Presidential election. Of course, it could be argued that it was a choice between two evils (depending on your view of Hillary Clinton) and some may have viewed Trump as less of a threat than Clinton which is why many voted for him - but I like to stay away from American politics so I am just explaining some of the arguments I have personally heard. Anyway, the point is, no matter how unpopular Donald Trump was made out to be, he won the election. People voted for him and agreed with him, his use of free speech allowed his controversial ideas to be heard and allowed people to agree with him then vote for him. Had Trump been censored at the start of his campaign, his voice would not have been heard and he would not have won. I don't know what that says about the people who voted for him but what can you do? That being said, I don't agree with a lot of what Trump has said. Indeed, I don't really like politics at all because it is the same rubbish that is spewed year after year and nothing really ever changes. Maybe that is why so many people voted for him? Because he wasn't reciting the same thing people have heard for many years?
I guess an optimistic view could be that free speech has the potential to enable progress because controversial views can often be progressive - such as the gay and black rights movements. People in those groups, and supporters of them, were seen as enablers and vigilantes because it wasn't acceptable to be gay, or for a black person to sit anywhere they wanted on a bus, for example. Only when those people spoke out, protested, and challenged society and the law did progress begin to occur. In theory then, free speech could be a way to free those who are still shackled by society's norms and expectations. However, when the term 'free speech' is used by controversial figures, they are often campaigning for supremacy of themselves and those like them rather than equality for those who are being discriminated against.
Free speech is not progressive when it is about going back to 'traditional' values or 'the way it used to be'. Free speech is not about improving your own situation by putting others at a disadvantage. Free speech should not be used to further a discriminatory agenda but should be used to enable unheard voices to be heard. Free speech should be used for equality and to fight injustice not to impart hatred. As a society we should aim to move forwards, not backwards, And so the argument comes back to wondering whether or not it is right to silence those who impart hate speech against others. And the retaliation against that is that by silencing those people we, in turn, are committing an act of discrimination by telling people their views are not allowed or acceptable. It is a never ending cycle and I do not think there is a single answer to it.
Free speech and hate speech become intertwined and it is hard to determine where the line between them is - what is acceptable and what is not? And again the question comes up whether it is ethically or morally right to silence unpopular views just because we do not like them. Because, at the end of the day, where there are people who preach those controversial views, there are people who are listening and supporting. If a person has strong opinions, they will not be silenced but simply pushed to the side. Just because the media is not covering something, does not mean that it does not exist. It is perhaps more dangerous then to push these people underground and allow them to build their support network quietly because, as current events have proven, they could surprise everyone and come out on top anyway.
Perhaps an answer is that we should all be open to debate and not be so sensitive and quick to put down other ideas because we do not like them. By allowing debates to happen, we are opening ourselves up to other points of view and are able to share our views with others. Debate could lead to learning on both sides, to understand how the 'other' formulates their opinions. This learning could then lead to progression and informed decisions being made in the future - with all sides of the argument being taken into consideration.
Of course on both sides of the argument there will be those who are not open to debate and who will either try to silence the other or shout over the other argument in order to be heard. There are always extremists no matter what side of the argument you are on but, in order to progress as a society, I believe that being open to all forms of opinion (so you can compare it to your own and propose your side) is key to forming a more cohesive understanding of society. I know life is not that simple, but it all takes time and it involves small steps at a time towards a more progressive and equal society.
Liam :)
Those who are often criticised for their controversial and offensive views use free speech as a way to argue that it is essential in order to give a voice to those silenced by political correctness. However, what happens when those same people use their right to freedom of speech to try and silence and discriminate other people? It seems that at that point, freedom of speech has been taken a step too far and has been used as a platform for hate speech and to preach a regressive agenda.
At the same time, however, is it right to censor and silence views that we (whether 'we' be a small group of people, a council, or a country) simply disagree with or find offensive? How can we claim equality for all when we silence those who express views that are not deemed politically correct? Or perhaps, since free speech is often incited by controversial figures, is 'free speech' a term that should be synonymously used with 'hate speech'? Is free speech just hate speech in disguise and a way to appeal to or challenge those who believe in equality for all?
Despite these controversial views, and what the media portrays to us, there are many people who (scarily) do agree with figures who preach dangerous opinions. Take Donald Trump for example (I know, I am tired about talking about him all the time too now). Trump was often portrayed as a joke candidate to us in the UK, and it seemed he was the underdog in terms of popularity due to his racist, misogynist, and homophobic views. However, Trump obviously did something right and managed to garner enough popularity to win the vote in the Presidential election. Of course, it could be argued that it was a choice between two evils (depending on your view of Hillary Clinton) and some may have viewed Trump as less of a threat than Clinton which is why many voted for him - but I like to stay away from American politics so I am just explaining some of the arguments I have personally heard. Anyway, the point is, no matter how unpopular Donald Trump was made out to be, he won the election. People voted for him and agreed with him, his use of free speech allowed his controversial ideas to be heard and allowed people to agree with him then vote for him. Had Trump been censored at the start of his campaign, his voice would not have been heard and he would not have won. I don't know what that says about the people who voted for him but what can you do? That being said, I don't agree with a lot of what Trump has said. Indeed, I don't really like politics at all because it is the same rubbish that is spewed year after year and nothing really ever changes. Maybe that is why so many people voted for him? Because he wasn't reciting the same thing people have heard for many years?
I guess an optimistic view could be that free speech has the potential to enable progress because controversial views can often be progressive - such as the gay and black rights movements. People in those groups, and supporters of them, were seen as enablers and vigilantes because it wasn't acceptable to be gay, or for a black person to sit anywhere they wanted on a bus, for example. Only when those people spoke out, protested, and challenged society and the law did progress begin to occur. In theory then, free speech could be a way to free those who are still shackled by society's norms and expectations. However, when the term 'free speech' is used by controversial figures, they are often campaigning for supremacy of themselves and those like them rather than equality for those who are being discriminated against.
Free speech is not progressive when it is about going back to 'traditional' values or 'the way it used to be'. Free speech is not about improving your own situation by putting others at a disadvantage. Free speech should not be used to further a discriminatory agenda but should be used to enable unheard voices to be heard. Free speech should be used for equality and to fight injustice not to impart hatred. As a society we should aim to move forwards, not backwards, And so the argument comes back to wondering whether or not it is right to silence those who impart hate speech against others. And the retaliation against that is that by silencing those people we, in turn, are committing an act of discrimination by telling people their views are not allowed or acceptable. It is a never ending cycle and I do not think there is a single answer to it.
Free speech and hate speech become intertwined and it is hard to determine where the line between them is - what is acceptable and what is not? And again the question comes up whether it is ethically or morally right to silence unpopular views just because we do not like them. Because, at the end of the day, where there are people who preach those controversial views, there are people who are listening and supporting. If a person has strong opinions, they will not be silenced but simply pushed to the side. Just because the media is not covering something, does not mean that it does not exist. It is perhaps more dangerous then to push these people underground and allow them to build their support network quietly because, as current events have proven, they could surprise everyone and come out on top anyway.
Perhaps an answer is that we should all be open to debate and not be so sensitive and quick to put down other ideas because we do not like them. By allowing debates to happen, we are opening ourselves up to other points of view and are able to share our views with others. Debate could lead to learning on both sides, to understand how the 'other' formulates their opinions. This learning could then lead to progression and informed decisions being made in the future - with all sides of the argument being taken into consideration.
Of course on both sides of the argument there will be those who are not open to debate and who will either try to silence the other or shout over the other argument in order to be heard. There are always extremists no matter what side of the argument you are on but, in order to progress as a society, I believe that being open to all forms of opinion (so you can compare it to your own and propose your side) is key to forming a more cohesive understanding of society. I know life is not that simple, but it all takes time and it involves small steps at a time towards a more progressive and equal society.
Liam :)
Censorship of a person's right to speak and think is desperately controlling and curbs evolution and innovation. Yet we observe it possibly experience it in our daily life. Occasionally this can encourage us to broadcast the same positive message in a different way 😙
ReplyDelete