TOPIC GUIDE: Free speech
"Free speech is not an absolute"
PUBLISHED: 01 Sep 2012
AUTHOR: Tom Slater & Alex Hochuli
Share this Topic Guide:
The question of whether there should be limits to freedom of speech has been constantly re-examined in the wake of recent events. In 2006, incitement law was extended to cover incitement to religious hatred and the new precedent this set has lead to a number of controversies [Ref: Guardian]. The Scottish parliament recently passed a law prohibiting sectarian and religious chants at football matches in order to quell an historic rivalry between predominantly Protestant and Catholic supporters of Scotland’s two biggest teams [Ref: BBC News]. Such bans have been seen by some as important safe-guards which protect religious denominations from harm, yet others have felt that they represent a distinct affront to freedom of speech. Beyond incitement laws other recent issues have come to the fore in this debate, including that of Welsh student Liam Stacey, jailed for a series of offensive and racially aggravated statements on social networking site Twitter, raising questions about online accountability [Ref: BBC News]; and the case of Emma West who was videoed on a Croydon tram, and subsequently arrested and charged with racially aggravated public order offences [Ref: Telegraph], highlighting the issue of public offence and outrage, and how we deal with these today. Furthermore, while incitement to hatred against gay people remains beyond the remit of law, a series of adverts which suggested homosexuality is a treatable condition were banned by Mayor Boris Johnson [Ref: Journal]. Johnson claimed this was in the name of maintaining the capital’s tolerant reputation, yet others have felt this move curtailed free speech merely to avoid causing undue offence. While free speech is still widely considered a central democratic right, these events have lead many to feel that it has conceivable limits. Deciding if freedom of speech should be seen as an absolute remains essential in determining the nature of our society.
For further reading use the menu bar on the right hand side.
Free speech DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
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.
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
Guardian 12 April 2016
John Roberts Speakers’ Corner Trust 1 March 2011
Owen Jones Guardian 13 April 2016
Guardian 11 April 2016
Brianna Wu Daily Dot 12 March 2015
Laurie Penny Al Jazeera 22 February 2014
Dominique Jackson Daily Mail 12 June 2012
Matthew Tariq Wilkinson Guardian 18 May 2012
Oran Blackwood Afro News 17 April 2012
Balaji Ravichandran Pink News 12 April 2012
Yaaser Vanderman Law Think 4 March 2011
Brendan O'Neill spiked 14 April 2016
Cathy Young Observer 10 March 2016
Kalev Leetaru Forbes 15 January 2016
Willard Foxton Telegraph 9 February 2015
Philip Johnston Telegraph 14 May 2012
Tom Chivers Telegraph 12 April 2012
Suzanne Moore Guardian 18 January 2012
Sunny Hundal Guardian 29 November 2011
Brendan O’Neill Telegraph 29 August 2011
Timothy Garton Ash Guardian 6 June 2012
Michael Rundle Huffington Post 7 April 2012
Joyce Arthur RH Reality Check 21 September 2011
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
Lucy Worsley Telegraph 13 April 2016
Chris Baraniuk BBC News 21 March 2016
Douglas Murray Spectator 2 March 2016
Kalev Leetaru Forbes 16 February 2016
Rebecca MacKinnon CNN 25 January 2016
Yoree Koh Wall Street Journal 11 January 2016
Emily Bell Guardian 10 January 2016
Brendan O'Neill Telegraph 7 December 2015
BBC News 20 October 2015
Fiona R. Martin & Jonathon Hutchinson The Conversation 17 September 2015
Nicholas Jones New Zealand Herald 30 June 2015
Matthew Ingram Fortune 12 June 2015
Vijaya Gadde Washington Post 16 April 2015
Eliana Dockterman Time Magazine 16 October 2014
Suzanne Moore Guardian 6 October 2014
Anne Perkins Guardian 22 January 2014
Robert Sharp New Statesman 31 July 2012
Charles Arthur Guardian 15 June 2012
David Davis Daily Mail 15 May 2012
Luke Samuel spiked 10 May 2012
Debating Europe 10 May 2012
Kirsten Sjøvoll Inform 20 April 2012
Danielle S. McLaughlin Huffington Post 5 April 2012
P R Kumaraswamy Daily Pioneer 28 January 2012
Simon Jenkins Guardian 13 January 2012
Kevin Rooney Independent 6 October 2011
Nate Anderson Arstechnica 24 May 2011
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
IN THE NEWS
Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate.
Guardian 12 May 2016
Independent 11 May 2016
Telegraph 10 May 2016
Guardian 13 April 2016
Cybersmile 4 March 2016
Daily Mirror 19 February 2016
Guardian 9 February 2016
Sky News 24 May 2015
Telegraph 24 May 2015
Telegraph 5 February 2015
BBC News 19 October 2014
Guardian 31 July 2012
Financial Times 27 June 2012
BBC News 29 May 2012
Telegraph 22 May 2012
BBC News 9 May 2012
Daily Mail 16 April 2012
BBC News 13 April 2012
Journal 13 April 2012
Guardian 1 April 2012
BBC News 27 March 2012
Belfast Telegraph 12 March 2012
BBC News 1 March 2012
Hindu 15 February 2012
Courier 14 December 2011
Telegraph 28 November 2011
BBC News 22 November 2011
BBC News 17 October 2011
Express 3 October 2011
This site contains links to websites operated by parties other than Debating Matters. Although we make every effort to ensure links are current, they will sometimes break after Topic Guide publication. If a link does not work, then the publication reference and date should enable you to find an alternate link. If you find a broken link do please send it to the webmaster for review.
TOPIC GUIDE MENU
Select the relevant option
Related topic guides