Customer Reviews

Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Freedom of speech is considered one of the most fundamental human freedoms, especially in modern liberal democracies. It has become de facto THE litmus test of overall freedom that citizens of any society enjoy. And yet, the notion that we should have this freedom is relatively recent. The modern understanding of this freedom can more or less be traced to John Stewart Mill's "On Liberty," although there have been acknowledgements of the importance of freedom of speech that precede that work.

This very short introduction covers some of those historical developments, but most of the book is dedicated to the contemporary controversies that surround various interpretations and limitations of the freedom of speech. In particular, the book deals with the famous quote of Oliver Wendell Holmes that freedom of speech does not entail falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and similar instances where speech can lead to physical or psychological harm. The book gives other examples of where our abstract notions of freedom of speech may collide with reality. The author is very good at appreciating the fact that the real world is very different from an academic discussion seminar, and many practical considerations oftentimes need to be taken into the account when deciding what should and should not be protected as free speech.

I find this book to be operating from a slight (perhaps unconscious) bias in its treatment of blasphemy and pornography. It seems to imply that religious and anti-religious "speech" (however one defines it) is really not categorically different from other forms of speech and ideas, while on the other hand the author is willing to concede that there is something categorically different when it comes to pornography. While I in fact more or less agree with the conclusions or the general attitude of the author to how these two categories of speech should be handled, I think that religion is a fundamentally separate category of speech and needs to be handled as such. For if this were not the case, if religion were just yet another set of ideas amongst many, then all the laws that have been enacted to ensure the "separation of church and state" would be very grievous violations of the freedom of speech. And this, I am sure, neither the author nor most people this day would find a desirable way to interpret freedom of speech.

The last chapter deals with the intrinsic conflict between freedom of speech and the modern notion of copyright. Lime in most other discussions of the limitations of free speech that are presented in this book, it is quite clear that there are significant differences of opinion of what constitutes fair use of copyrighted material, across the world and within any given country. The arrival of the internet has only complicated these matters further. This could be a subject of a book in its own right, but this very short introduction does a fairly good job of at least bringing up all the main issues.

Based on all the controversies that have transpired over the years when the free speech is concerned, it is virtually certain that this will continue to be a much discussed topic for the foreseeable future. This little introduction, however, will continue to be relevant as an accessible overview of this fascinating topic for years to come. It is probably one of the most informative such introductions that are currently available.

Warburton writes, "John Stuart Mill was explicit that incitement to violence was the point at which intervention to curb free speech was appropriate. Mere offensiveness wasn't sufficient grounds for intervention and should not be prevented by law, by threats, or by social pressure." "A spirit of toleration should not include a prohibition on causing offence." Times columnist Oliver Kamm agreed, "Free speech does indeed cause hurt - but there is nothing wrong in this."

As US Justice Brennan said in Texas v. Johnson, which upheld the right of dissenters to burn the US flag as a protest, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Virtually anything can be seen as offensive, and something that is both true and important is bound to offend somebody.

But in Britain today, it seems that we have the right to have free speech, as long as we don't use it. So members of the English Defence League are arrested and the group Muslims against Crusades is disbanded for saying things that some find offensive. But it is legitimate, if unjust and idiotic, to call for Sharia law here, and it is also legitimate, and just, to oppose Sharia law.

This government is trying to suppress dissent. It is expanding its police powers to control and limit expression, narrowing our rights of democratic participation.

The meanings of symbols like the poppy are in the realm of opinion and argument, so the state must not impose a politically correct interpretation on us. The state abused Remembrance Day, when poppy-sellers demanded that we stand `shoulder to shoulder' with the armed forces serving in the war against Afghanistan.

War demands consensus and recruitment of the media. We must resist the warmongering drive for conformity. Some may find it offensive to be told that that their country's armed forces are used not for national self-defence, not for any national interest, but for illegal aggression. But if the truth hurts us, then we must ask why.