A look at the cost of free speech

[ficwize]

Given some of the meta flying around the old El Jay at the moment, I've become intrigued by the knowledge that not all democratic/republican governments (and, no, I am not talking about the American political parties here) allow free speech.

I will be upfront in my own bias and admit that that realization rocked me on my feet. While I grew up hearing that the First Amendment was a wonderful thing, as an adult (and as a lawyer), I got to look at it and see for myself.

And I came down on the side of free speech. But that's neither here nor there, really. I want to know what you guys think, if you'll tell me.

On the one hand, you hear stories about people being prosecuted for things like drawings of people engaged in illegal sex practices (which, to me is utterly ridiculous) and on the other, you hear about Neo Nazis being allowed to adopt a highway.

Given that most of the wank on the internet (ETA: "about which I am speaking now") centers around slash writing (and to some extent RPS, I guess?), I'm curious to know what people think. It seems to me that the same people got up in arms about Strikethrough as are now up in arms about people saying that they have the "right" to write whatever they want.

The internet, of course, isn't the United States government and isn't governed by those laws. So, when is the cost of free speech too high? Or is it never too high and should be endured even at the cost of listening to ridiculous, stupid, and/or hateful things being said?

Comments

[milleniumrex.livejournal.com]

I strongly fall down on the "never too high" category. The only time I find it acceptable to restrict free speech is when the speech is a direct attempt to incite murder. And while I find a lot of the things said out there to be absolutely repulsive, I sort of have to tolerate them. My main concern is that if we start restricting free speech, the power to restrict it is in the hands of whoever has the power at the moment - which can lead to some pretty uncomfortable situations.

But then, I'm a cranky libertarian absolutist. :)

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

In the interest of intelligent conversation, would you be willing to expand on "a direct attempt to incite murder" and talk about how that is different than hate-speech? I'd be really curious to know what you think.

And I'm rather fond of cranky libertarian absolutists. :)

[milleniumrex.livejournal.com]

Well, the way I see it is, someone yelling "We need to take back our country from those damn Jews" or something like that is obviously inciting hatred, but they really can't be held responsible for how someone takes that. They didn't directly tell anyone to commit violence.

On the other hand, someone who added "and we can start by shooting _______ " would be clearly advocating the commission of a specific violent act. It's the equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There's a direct link between the incitement and the damage that isn't there if the hate speech is less specific.

Hate groups have gotten really good at this over the years, walking this fine line just short of unlawful incitement.

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

I would agree with your distinction. Does it change if the group speaking has a history of actual violence? Like the KKK for example?

[milleniumrex.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily, but they seem to get a lot less leeway from law enforcement, because everyone knows what they're up to. Someone else might not get charged, but if they step one foot over that line, they'll get hammered.

[ithildyn.livejournal.com]

Never too high. Because who decides what's stupid/hateful and shouldn't be said? God know, here are things I read that make my blood boil, but that means I can write things that make other peoples blood boil.

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

I think most people can agree to a certain extent that something are stupid/hateful - like the Nazi party, for example - but I agree with your comments.

Plus, I sort of embrace the idea that if someone isn't angry at you for something, you're not doing it right. ;)

[worlddescending.livejournal.com]

My husband is a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the ACLU and we've talked about this a lot. The ACLU supports free speech, period, meaning they'd support both examples of what you mentioned above (as far as I know, anyway). That's one of the tough subjects for me. I seem to be growing more conservative as I get older. I guess, personally, I believe that there are some groups (see NAZIs, etc) who shouldn't be allowed free speech.

However, I"m aware that that's hypocritical. I own that.

Of course, I write slash and RPF; I'm aware that it can be seen as offensive. I also go to great lengths to separate that from my Real Life.

Regarding your last question. I would rather live with the ability for free speech. Period.

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

I believe that the ACLU would support both examples above - though I can't speak for them of course! I find it interesting that some countries don't allow groups like the National Socialists freedom of speech. I can both approve of the sentiment while I disapprove of the action, but then, those places also don't have to drive by swastika's that are legally put in place on a public highway.

*rolls eyes*

Honestly, the befuddlement I feel is similar to watching Supernatural fans get up in arms over the show actually showing fandom embracing things like Wincest and J2. Why is all right for someone to get to write those things about real actors, or insert things into the show, but not all right for the show to do basically the same thing to fandom?

And the comment about Supernatural is just because that is where I see this happening. I by no means want to indicate that I think they're somehow different from fandom as a whole. But "free speech" in this instance means that both get to happen. (Not that either is covered under free speech, because as Strikethrough pointed out, it only applies to the US gov't and not to private companies or citizens for the most part.)

[worlddescending.livejournal.com]

Aside from SPN fandom being cray-cray you mean?! ahahah. But yeah. I agree with you. I will support free speech over the lack thereof. That option is of course superior to me.

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

Hee. In the grand scheme of fandoms, I can think of a few others I'd add to "approach with caution" list...

[iambickilometer.livejournal.com]

I believe in free speech. I may seek to educate people whose writing or speech is hurtful, and I may even object to speaking about certain topics myself, but I will never support shutting down anyone's right to self-expression.

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

I think I'm with you. Education over legislation. But it's interesting when it comes to areas like the internet, where it isn't a right... or other countries where it isn't a right.

Love the icon. *hearts*

[ficwize.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure either, though I am now curious!

[nardaviel.livejournal.com]

A little bit late to the party, but this is something I feel strongly about – the only excuse for censorship is, as someone else said, direct incitement to murder. Nothing else is even remotely acceptable. If Neo Nazis pay money to adopt a stretch of highway, they have the right to have their name put up. If I get to say things that enrage white supremacists – and I do – they get to say things that enrage me.

And how would we censor ridiculous and stupid things? I have a very broad definition of ridiculous and/or stupid things. If my definitions were put into place and enforced half the global population wouldn't be able to open their mouths. But if someone with more lenient standards defined the terms, I would be forced to listen to things that are, to me, ridiculous and stupid. No, if people with mainstream views have the right to express them, then everyone else does as well.