The question of whether there should be limits to freedom of speech has been constantly re-examined in the wake of recent controversies. The most heated flare-up of recent years in this ongoing debate was the controversy over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, which prompted comparisons with the landmark Rushdie affair. Further calls for views deemed offensive to be banned involved Sikh and Christian protests over the plays Behtzi and Jerry Springer: The Opera, provoking a wider discussion about whether in a more diverse society we should all be more sensitive about causing offence. Then there is the related question of incitement, with a law passed against incitement to religious hatred [Ref: BBC News] and calls for extension of incitement laws to cover inciting hatred against gay people [Ref: BBC News]. The Terrorism Act outlawed glorification of terrorism [Ref: BBC News] and was used to convict the self-styled ‘Lyrical Terrorist’ [Ref: BBC News]. Academics have also sparked controversy, with the claims of Frank Ellis [Ref: Observer] and James Watson [Ref: The Times] about the inferiority of black people raising the question of whether there should be free speech for racists. Often at the centre of protests, the British historian David Irving – who was jailed in Austria for Holocaust denial [Ref: BBC News] – and the leader of the BNP Nick Griffin made headlines when they were invited to take part in a debate on free speech at the Oxford Union [Ref: Observer]. In response, the National Union of Students reaffirmed [Ref: Guardian] its controversial ‘no platform’ policy for fascists and racists. Those who say free speech is a value on which a democratic and open society must not compromise are met with the charge of free speech fundamentalism. The question of whether freedom of speech should be seen as an absolute remains essential in determining the nature of our society.

Are the traditional arguments for freedom of speech irrelevant, or more relevant than ever?
The Enlightenment thinker and defender of human reason over religious dogma Voltaire is associated with the sentiment that ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. The philosopher JS Mill defended freedom of speech on the basis that it is only by allowing beliefs to be criticised that we can be justified in believing that they are true. Some argue these ideas are still fundamental and that free debate, not restrictions, remains the only way of countering false or offensive views. Others say absolute freedom of speech would be all very well if debates in society were conducted like well-mannered discussions in school classrooms. But in our society, where the media has a powerful position and where many social groups feel marginalised and ignored, such positions are idealistic and outdated.

Should speech be limited to avoid causing offence? Do we have a right not to be offended?
Certain actions are criminalised in order to protect people from physical harm. Extending this argument to speech, it is argued that some types of speech, particularly hate speech, should be banned because the harm they cause is just as serious. In a culturally diverse society, good manners and respect for others’ beliefs should take precedence. On the other hand, it is argued that if one accepts some limits to free speech on grounds of offence, it will lead to competing demands by other groups not be offended, leading to an overall loss of freedom. Also, it’s claimed that the best way to oppose speech you don’t like is to use your own free speech against it, and that the whole point of freedom of speech is to protect ‘extreme’ speech; after all, by definition ‘acceptable’ or ‘mainstream’ speech needs no such protection.

How does free speech relate to democracy?
Advocates of absolute freedom of speech say that in a diverse society, instead of trying to prevent offence, the right to be offensive should be seen as essential to democracy. Diverging values lead to political conflict and the only way to progress is through airing different views. Looked at this way, free speech is the basis for all other political values as it assumes people are rational and fully capable of assessing different arguments. Those wary of protecting absolute freedom of speech take a very different view. They argue that speech is not only used to make rational arguments, but to foment hatred and stigmatise powerless minorities. Rather than free speech being egalitarian, it is too often used to oppress those ‘without a voice’.

How do we deal with ‘dangerous’ speech? Don’t all rights come with responsibilities?
One argument against absolute freedom of speech is that speech is never really ‘free’ but has consequences; like all rights, it comes with responsibilities. Proponents of the above argument point out, for example, that there is no right to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. They claim that this can be extended to other areas, such as speech that incites others to directly harm third parties, which justifies banning certain inflammatory types of speech. Advocates retort that in the political arena we can reflect on what is said; we do not just follow blindly what we are told. Further, the fact that some illegal acts incidentally involve speech does not detract from the absolute nature of freedom of speech as a political value. Shouting ‘fire!’ is more analogous to the unnecessary pulling of a fire alarm, which is also illegal, than to other types of speech.