Free Speech

Some favour unrestricted free speech, others favour free speech within the confines of the law and others believe in free speech providing it adheres to cultural norms, which change with time.

I've been thinking about free speech for some time and am coming to the conclusion that what is permitted in free speech has to bound up with basic human rights.

Azimov's Laws of Robotics are worth quoting, including the Zeroth Law, which was a later addition.

0) A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. 

1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 

2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 

3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The interesting thing about these laws is that they are set out in an hierarchy and provide guidance in the form of what happens in the case of conflict with other laws. This made me consider whether human rights should have the same hierarchy.

If one reads the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are 30 articles with not a hint of an hierarchy and hence there is scope for conflict between rights, which is where problems lie in regards to free speech.

I believe the starting point for any revised list of human rights should start with the right to life and any subsequent right should only be accepted on condition that it does not conflict with the right to life, etc., etc,.

I just performed a quick Google search on Hierarchy of Human Rights and found this interesting piece, which is worth a read.

Analyse and discuss...