The Freedom of Speech should be no debate.
Since I can remember I have been interested in debate. Aside from the act of debating, I love discussing various topics with people that have passion for them. Personally, I have always loved diving into new topics, researching the unknown and as a consequence formulating my own positions with each new discovery. It has to be said that my opinions have always been fluid. As I argue all should be. Thats the point of new information. If I am convinced, then, my opinion adapts to that. I argue that this should be everyones approach to new information but I was naive and unfortunately, emotion plays to large a role today.
To begin with, it’s important to note that in my opinion offence is an entirely personal subject. Someone choses to feel offended based on what has been said. It is an entirely subjective emotion deriving from the individual recipient. It should in no case ever be discussed as part of freedom of speech or arguments towards limiting it. It should never be an assumption that because a conversation or a thought is unpleasant, that it will result in offence and should therefore be unheard or cancelled. I mention this at the start because the excuse of offence is always used as argument for tailoring what can and should be said. Either speech is free or it is not. Any restrictions established sets up a dangerous precedent for any delicate souls to abuse.
“ If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear” — George
I always try to appreciate the “Freedom of Speech” in the context of the liberal democracies in which we live in. I believe that we are blessed to live in such unique circumstances with the right of vote, the freedom of association, expression and speech; values that many have died for, many would die for. The most important element underlying these values and systems of governance is that the citizenry is educated, that they remain informed, and that develop their opinions to changing realities. An informed electorate is the strongest back bone to our democracies. There should be no excuses of misinformation when we all have the capabilities to check, double check and triple check everything we are exposed to.
Never before has there been a time in which humanity has had so much information readily available to them. Whether it’s each persons respective education or access to the worlds information at the palm of your hand, there no longer is an excuse for some one not to know. Curiosity and a lust for the unknown becomes the fuel for new truths and anyone that intends to use their vote wisely should have either of those traits at a minimum. Every individual should constantly be holding their own opinions to account with new information. If life was all just a single truth, all of our problems would be over. It requires us to be flexible and malleable. Our democracies require it and our ability to hold civil discourse is pleading for it.
In addition to the vast amounts of information we have available, we are exposed to differences at home, abroad and through our consumerism. Never before has humanity been so well travelled, so cultured, so multi cultural and so connected. We have no reason to isolate ourselves when our surroundings can open our eyes and understandings. I strongly believe that access to differences, bridges gaps, misunderstandings and thus breaks the misconceptions one finds in ignorance. After all, the more information, the easier it is to relate to another situation or person. This is extremely important when debating, discussing or even voting.
This doesn’t mean that with all these opportunities, we mustn’t stand fast to what we believe. I just believe that with more information, you can make more informed opinions which sets the path for better clashes between formulated opinions. What I can not stand, what I can never defend, is a clash of opinions between uninterested, uninformed individuals who act on emotive judgements but still maintain they are more qualified then the rest. It is crucial to challenge and unfortunately today, its getting harder to do so respectfully.
I go back to offence because it plays a large role in the arguments people make that free speech could cause harm or incite violence. The latter, I am more sensitive too but still disagree that its an excuse to tailor free speech. We must all be accountable to our own actions, morality and course. Cancelling or limiting speech because it causes “harm” is ridiculous because of how vast the scope of harm is. It is impossible to legislate safely to protect the individual from harm. You might not want to talk to someone that has been offensive to you, I certainly wouldn’t, but I’d rather know this person is offensive than have it hide and fester behind the curtains. I’d rather challenge the persons “offensive” or “harmful” ideas then have them live in an echo chamber of their own thoughts and opinions to which they will always be right. It is important to confront the uncomfortable. For your sake, for their sake and for the sake of our liberal democratic foundations.
During my time at University, cancel culture was very much alive. Unfortunately, it still very much is. A small “elite” of the university believed that shielding us from uncomfortable conversations would safeguard our wellbeing when in fact, it was ill preparing us for what was to come. The real world. One incident in particular was striking. A UKIP MEP scheduled to come speak at the university and was later cancelled on the grounds that past comments would offend certain minorities.
I was one of those minorities. I did not take offence to his past comments, I excitedly welcomed the opportunity to challenge him in an open forum. I researched, I formed my arguments, I was ready to ask my questions. Alas, that opportunity was robbed of me. I communicated my concerns to the student union, and heard nothing. I contacted the diplomatic post of the European Commission expressing concerns that fundamental rights had been breached and the response I received was:
“ We can not intervene in the decisions set by the Student Union” — in short, that email reads that the interpretation of free speech is down to a group of students because in the European Unions own charters, there are sub clauses under our natural right of freedom of speech. Please understand that whilst my right to education had been violated, I was more outraged at the precedent they had set. Despite having had their win at shielding us from opinions that didn’t match their agenda, one day, they may fall victim to the same system of censorship. Something, we all naturally disagree with under normal circumstances.
This is not an isolated case. Cancel culture has robbed many of the chance to learn, confront uncomfortable discussions and challenge. It also sets the precedent that small organisations, with no set legitimate right to do so, can set the agenda on discussion and information. Extremely troublesome in a place of learning such as a University.
It goes without saying that in a society confident about their level of informed positions, there is no need to shout, insult and condescend when having discussions with opposing sides. Unfortunately, civil discussion is a luxury today and this is troublesome. It is troublesome because it is the polar opposite of a liberal democracy where the individual should be confident enough about their opinions to discuss without being over sensitive.
I do not believe we live in an adequately enough informed society. This is not an insult, just what I feel is the reality. Lots of discussions I have with people working full time admit that they don’t have the time to be as informed as they would like to be, which is completely understandable. That reality however comes with its separate set of responsibilities when making decisions, when engaging in discussions and when knowing where the limits are.
