OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Nick Medford]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:33:44 GMT, M Holmes <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK> wrote:

>> >A fair
>> >response to it would be to build a bacon sarnie so large it could be
>> >seen from space and invite all to participate.
>
>> I agree this might be fair, but would it be wise?
>
>I think so. Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble when
>the government did it over threats to Rushdie.

I agree, but, as Jack Straw said (and yes, it sets my teeth on edge to find
myself agreeing with Jack Straw about anything, but by the law of averages
it has to happen occasionally I suppose), the *right* to say something
offensive does not entail any sort of *obligation* to do so. I don't buy
the idea that a decision not to reprint the cartoons would automatically be
kowtowing to anybody. It's a fine line, of course. I would prefer to see
journalists and editors exercising restraint (as has happened in the UK),
because they *can*. Obviously I would not be in favour of any governmental
intervention compelling them to do so.

>> And where does it leave your earlier criterion of "forseeable harm" as
>> the limit to FoS? Because you now seem to be saying that forseeable
>> harm should be the determinant of limiting FoS, EXCEPT where the
>> principle of free speech is itself at stake.  And clearly this
>> exemption could be held to cover just about anything.

>
>No. In fact I'm trying to find a distinction between deliberate
>incitement "Let's kill all the infidels!", reckless stupidity (shouting
>"fire" in a crowded theatre) and speech which people choose themselves
>to react to in irresponsible or illegal ways, such as burning down an
>Embassy over cartoons or the Anti-Nazi League trashing a BNP
>minibus after a speech by Nick Griffin.

>
>If you've encouraged someone to act illegally (and Trev's song might
>well count here) and they do it, I think incitement or conspiracy is a
>fair call.

Again, this ilustrates the difficulties of trying to apply these simple
formulae to messy, complex situations, since you are in effect saying that
any number of songs, books, casual remarks etc. could be construed
as "incitement" if someone acts in accordance with them. Ever heard the
Dead Kennedys' "Let's Lynch the Landlord"? (great song, btw). Well, if
you've not heard it, the title probably tells you what you need to know for
the purpose of this discussion. So- if someone did indeed lynch their
landlord, and claimed that song had acted as incitement, then what? Now, as
a self-appointed "reasonable man", I would feel that it was obvious that
the song was, like Trev's, a fantasy. But would twelve other "reasonable
men" make the same call? You seem to be saying that within your framework,
you'd be unable to disagree with them if they found there had been an act
of incitement. For an arch-libertarian this is rather problematic, surely?

If someone else acts illegally just to respond to legal
>speech, but that speech is not incitement, then I think the legal hammer
>should fall on them, even if their previous distemper has made it a
>forseeable result of the speech.
>
>Short form: don't tell someone to act illegally where there's a chance
>that they might.

Since there is always a chance they might, this comes down to "don't be
seen to advocate anything illegal, even if you are doing so in jest,
whimsy, or fantasy". I *know* you can't really believe this.

>
>> I think one of the most difficult things about this debate is it
>> brings into focus the question of principles vs practicalities.  Does
>> it make sense to assert and uphold what is a perfectly good and noble
>> *idea*, when by doing so all sorts of real-world mayhem is unleashed?
>
>Anyone can uphold a noble idea when it's no trouble to do so. The
>historical test is very much whether they an uphold it in face of
>difficulties, or even threat to life.

Upholding an idea in the face of threat to *other people's* lives is
probably not that difficult, provided as I said that one doesn't have to
meet the families afterwards to explain why the "principle" was paramount.

Personally- and this might leave me in a minority of one, but anyway- I am
rather sceptical about the importance placed on "principles". Principles
are not, after all, meant to be ends in themselves- rather they are
guidelines for a decent life, interaction with others, and society. There
is always the risk that upholding a "general principle" can become a
substitute for actually considering the merits of a given situation and its
particular circumstances.

This actually
>I think the principle is relatively straightforward.

Yes, I agree entirely, the principle is very simple. That's my point- given
that the reality is so much more complex, clearly the principle alone will
not suffice.

>> >If folks get their knickers in a twist over it then that's just too
>> >bad.
>
>> Perhaps...  but could you really explain that so airily to, let's say,
>> the family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if they made
>> it known that they held you partly responsible for provoking the
>> violence?
>
>I don't doubt that'd be difficult.  However we have more than a little
>experience of what happens when such freedoms vanish.  That can involve
>explaining to millions of families why we failed to defend the freedoms
>that would have protected their children. Going along to get along with
>fascists simply does not work.

Nice rhetoric, but there is, you will agree, some way to travel from "not
reprinting a bunch of cartoons" to "deaths of millions at the hands of
rampant fascism". Who can say whether the distance between "refusing to
exercise restraint despite the escalating crisis" and "world war three (or
similar)" might not be a shorter, more easily travelled route?

Incidentally, as a digression, I am reminded of the furore over the 1997
Sensation exhbition at the Royal Academy. You may remember the row over the
painting of Moors murderess Myra Hindley, and that Winnie Johnson, the
mother of one of Hindley's victims, asked for the portrait to be removed
from the exhibition to protect her feelings. Mrs Johnson and some
supporters picketed the gallery, leafleting those going in and out, and
some people (though not Mrs Johnson herself) actually damaged the painting
by throwing ink over it. The board of the Royal Academy met to decide
whether or not to keep the painting in the exhibition, deciding to do so,
although three members of that board then resigned in protest at this
decision. I have often thought about this case- the reaction in the art
world was overwhelmingly in support of the decision to keep the painting on
show, but I was never convinced that the "principle" in this instance
actually outweighed the terrible pain etched on Winnie Johnson's features
every time the poor woman appeared on the news.

Nick
Nick