Free Speech

Heretofore I've been a staunch defender of freedom of speech in all circumstances. I believed, and to a certain extent still do, that freedom of speech allows criticism and the challenging of ridiculous claims in open forum. Banning it simply drives it underground, where it festers in bubbles, unchallenged.

However, when you consider the concept of liberty, none of us are entirely free to do whatever we want. The fact we live in a civilization means we allow certain liberties to be curtailed as a quid pro quo. You can't, for example, shout; "Fire!" in a cinema because the resultant stampede could result in fatalities.

This is where the concept of responsibility enters the free speech arena. It's fraught with problems though. The fact someone denies the Holocaust may upset a few people, but it won't result in any serious, physical harm, as it's understood the Holocaust Denier is either a complete twonk or an extremist with an agenda. He, or she, is best ignored and not given the breath of publicity. 

The consequences of one's free speech should be taken into account. That doesn't mean to say one has to kow-tow to every lunatic pronouncement, but one should consider knock-on effects to oneself and one's polity.

Next we must consider collaterality - or the consequential effect, not on yourself, but others. Using the above example of shouting; "Fire!" in a cinema, it's not you that may be trampled to death (you'll be safely standing back), but others could.

Let's look at the Charlie Hebdo affair. We now know with a reasonable degree of certainty that if a cartoon of Mohammed is promulgated, some poor bugger is going to be attacked by a religious fanatic wielding a knife - not the nicest of prospects. It might be the cartoonist who is attacked, but it might equally be someone unconnected with the cartoon. You may say; "Well, that's the price of free speech," but what if that someone was a person dear to you and entirely unconnected with your prank - your spouse or child? I doubt you'd be so favourable toward free speech in those circumstances and you'd stem your pen.

Those who vociferously espouse their right to free speech have to take the above into consideration. It's not without consequences and merely saying we can't give in to terror doesn't means others should take the consequences for your action. You can't poke a snake with your finger and blame the snake when it bites you - it's in the nature of the snake.

Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed, knowing the consequences, has only one purpose - to take the piss and stir up trouble - trouble that might result in someone else's death. Is it entirely necessary to draw a cartoon of Mohammed, except to make a very contentious point?

It would be nice if all free speech was responded to with rationality but, sadly, we live in an irrational world where irrational beliefs, whatever their nature, are a constant danger. Merely ridiculing it won't make it go away, no matter how superior it may make you feel. Debate may.