Speech, and the freedom thereof.

So last night, I had the pleasure of receiving lots of less-than-happy comments regarding this blog post about the Richard Keys fiasco via Formspring. You can browse the fun if you like, it's just as likely to change anyone's mind about the issue as my post was in the first place (read: "not likely at all"). 

However, long story short, I ended up adding a whole new point to my argument- that regarding freedom of speech. It's this issue which I'd like to expand upon today.

Freedom of speech is stupidly important, it's essentially what makes democracy democracy. No diverse public opinions, no political opposition, no voting. 

Deeper that that, it is right and natural that every human being has a unique take on the world. If we block out those opinions different from ours, then we consistently live in our own world where everyone works the want we want/expect it to, and we never progress as human beings. 

All democratic regimes in this present world we are living in agree that speech should be basically free. Anyone living in the democracy has the right to openly criticise his government, and can more or less say whatever he likes about any situation or group of people. But where the "more or less" comes in is where people in the West are divided on. Should we have hate speech laws to protect certain vulnerable members of society? Are there some opinions that are just not acceptable to hear? Or should anyone be allowed to say anything, any time?

While it's more difficult than the Stats Monarchs of the world would have us believe to polarise people's opinions, for the sake of simplicity, we shall say that opinions on this issue fall into two categories: "restrictionists" and "ultra-freedomists."  

The restrictionist argument is that there should be limitations on what people say and how they say it. Proponents of restrictionism support hate speech laws and the like, saying that certain opinions are too aggressive/offensive to be allowed to be expressed in the public arena. The arguments for this are that a lot of the more controversial opinions are directly offensive towards certain groups of people, and that these people should not have to put up with prejudiced speech. Also, exposing people to thing like racism/sexism/homophobia/Islamophobia means that these prejudices will spread, and cause life to be even more unpleasant more the members of whichever minority group are being hated on.

Ultra-freedomists, on the other hand, think that people should be able to state any opinion at any point in time.  Many ultra-freedomists believe that hate speech laws are a sugar-coated way of stopping people vocally disagreeing with the norm, and that even if we hate what someone is saying, we should hear them regardless. They say that it is not up to society to decide which opinions are "acceptable" or not, and that human opinion is always human opinion. 

So, who wants to hear what I THINK?!

As is predictable, I lie between the restrictionist and ultra-freedomist views. But I'm closer in kin with the ultra-freedomists. Basically:

1. All hate speech laws should be abolished. They are too vague and easily manipulated; a proponent of gay marriage could accuse a Traditional Family Values Dude of be hateful towards gays, but the Traditional Family Values Dude could counteract by saying that Miss Gay Marriage Proponent is being hateful towards those with a social conservative outlook. This very example happens all the time, chiefly in the US, where they don't even have hate speech laws. 
2. There are two categories of speech that should be abolished. The first is when someone is going up to another person and swearing, shouting, using racist slurs. This is "slander", so no need for a hate speech category yet.
3. The second kind of illegal speech is when someone is directly encouraging the people listening to commit violent acts, against a certain demographic, or otherwise. This is one instance in which the safety of others comes before minor freedoms. I say minor, because if someone was homophobic, he could still say "I dislike gay people," but he could not go up to someone and say "hey! You! Go kill a gay person!".
4. No other speech should ever be illegal. Among the justifications stated in the pro-freedomist section above, I also think that it is nothing but counter-productive to ever tell a racist to stop saying racist things. She's not going to change her mind about blacks/Muslims, she's just going to add "OMFG I'm being oppressed!!!!" to her train of thought about society. Prejudiced opinions need to be expressed so that we can challenge them rationally. 

I don't think there's much to add to that, other than "what do you think about freedom of speech?". It's a interesting topic, so other opinions are always welcome!

OVER AND OUT. See you for Gay Friday tomorrow!