Andrew Zalotocky makes a useful point that we need to stop pretending that we have free speech in Britain, we do not. Time for a new description.
Regular Samizdata readers will probably be aware of the cases of Lynette Burrows and Iqbal Sacranie, who have both recently fallen foul of ‘hate speech’ legislation. The latter case prompted Guy Herbert to comment that “whatever it is, it is not freedom of expression”. I propose that we should call it ‘permitted speech’, in contrast to ‘free speech’.
For speech to be truly free it must include the right to say things that others would find grossly offensive. If a government uses the threat of prosecution to suppress speech that it considers offensive it is asserting that the people may only express the views that their rulers deem appropriate. No matter how lightly the government uses this power it is still establishing the principle that citizens do not have a right to speak freely, only a license to engage in the officially permitted forms of speech. America has ‘free speech’ and Britain has ‘permitted speech’.
Of course, the majority of people are not in the habit of expressing controversial views in the mass media and are therefore unlikely to feel immediately threatened by such restrictions. Even cases like that of the student who was arrested for calling a horse “gay” are likely to be seen as a joke rather than a demonstration of how criminalising the expression of certain opinions affects everybody. However, that just makes it even more important to explain why the right to freedom of speech must be defended, and to make clear that permitted speech is not the same thing at all.
Why should we acquiesce at all on the matter of freedom of speech at all? If we fit a new description to one of the most basic freedoms we enjoy then surely all we are doing is playing right in to Tony Blair’s ‘because its socially beneficial to all the community’ intimidation tactics. To use such a phrase as ‘permitted speech’ is to move away from the notion that our law enshrines the concept of freedom of speech and to allow for Labour to abolish the concept of freedom of expression, and thus free them to state that we now have speech solely ‘permitted’ as and when the government allows it.
By all means let Cameron and the Tories shy away from Blair’s Labour Party whenever he says ‘boo’ to them, but for Christ’s sake let’s start to see some backbone amongst the rest of the population.
I think the point needs to be made that a good way to judge how truly free speech and expression are is by looking at the edges – what are the responses to speech which is extreme, or trivial or which impacts few if any citizens.
It is very easy to pass off restrictions on such speech because most people would consider it trivial, or laughable. The ‘gay police horse’ is one such case – everyone reads about it and laughs, precisely becasue it is so silly.
But it is precisely that sort of case which is so important, because it sets the boundaries. If even the most extreme or ridiculous speech or expression is afforded the same right and protection as would be expected for more mainstream speech, then mainstream speech is safe. Or safer, at least. But if the silly, the vacuous and the trivial are repressed becasue nobody really cares about them, then anything can be suppressed and free speech become a popularity contest.
That’s why I like to see cities in the US lay on a huge police presence to protect the free-speech rights of a couple of dozen soi-disant Nazis, or deluded lunatics prettling on about the hollow-Earth-Jewish-banker conspiracy on late-night public access TV. The agressive protections of the margins of free speech make the center more secure.
Free speech is like pregnancy – you can’t have just a little bit of it. It’s all, or nothing, so if you see signs that suggest some things are allowed and some are not, the question is already settled – if some opinions are banned, all opinions are banned.
llater,
llamas
Isn’t the very essence of a “Police State” a place where the police have abritary powers of arrest? If you can be arrested for alling a police horse “gay”, then the police state is not coming, it’s here. As this blog is prone to say “The state is not your friend”. To put it mildly.
Maybe part of the problem is a background of people not arguing anymore, just saying that things are beyond the pale without saying why.
I’ve long thought we should have the BNP on Question Time. If they’re the racist asses people say they are, they’ll fall at the first light of rational argument. Attempts to ban them only convince voters that they must be doing something right. But I guess our politicians and media keep them off because they can’t argue – because they have no principles on which to build an argument.
Suppressed racism, like suppressed sexism, homophobia, antisemitism and all the rest, doesn’t go away because it’s suppressed. It festers. A healthy society is one that encourages people to speak.
Free speech is like pregnancy – you can’t have just a little bit of it. It’s all, or nothing, so if you see signs that suggest some things are allowed and some are not, the question is already settled – if some opinions are banned, all opinions are banned.
Another candidate for quote of the week!
Thank you. But if a ‘quote of the week’ is sought, may I suggest the following:
‘ . . . .that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all . . . . . liberty, because he being of course judge of the tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;
that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;
and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.’
Can’t say it better than that. Thomas Jefferson, 1789, and as true today as the day he penned it.
llater,
llamas
llamas,
Quite so, but it would still be nice to have a quote of the day…
Mind you, when I read your comment, I thought the last line wasn’t quite right.
Perhaps, “if some opinions are banned, no opinion is truly free.”
Toodle Pip!
PG
Add ageism. I received this email today from an employment law firm:
Maybe it would be easier if were just given a few phrases that we can say
I don’t have a problem with ageism – the first person who makes a rude comment about my age gets fired.
Oh wait …
“Free speech is like pregnancy – you can’t have just a little bit of it. It’s all, or nothing, so if you see signs that suggest some things are allowed and some are not, the question is already settled – if some opinions are banned, all opinions are banned.”
Bravo llamas!
From O. W. Holmes, Jr., one of my favourites, despite what one of my other favourites, H. L. Mencken, thinks of him:
‘Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carred out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experimant is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.’
– O. W. Holmes, Jr., dissenting, with Brandeis, in Abrams vs. United States, 250 U.S at 629
Talk about good timing! The headline on Drudge right now is:
AL GORE TO ATTACK BUSH ‘POLICE STATE’
The expression “permitted speech” seems a little too positive to me. Wouldn’t a better one be “limited speech” or “constrained speech”?
No. “Permitted speech” is perfect. Orwellian. They are not “limiting” you! The state is according you permission to indulge in some permitted forms of speaking! They are allowing it!
Bishop, I don’t think you’re permitted to say that.
Very nice, llamas.
Jefferson is an exponent of the value of reasoned discourse.
It is hatred for, and fear of, reasoned discourse that motivates the call for repression.
Good manners used to be machine which provided the “checks & balances” in freedom of speech.
Had we yet good manners, discussion of the FOS subject would be superfluous…….& I wouldn’t be reading some of these excellent postings.
A return to the old values of respect & good manners would solve the FOS controversy.
“Is it a plane?”
“No, it’s a pig.”
Britain has never actually had free speech. At most, it’s had very broad permitted speech. Blasphemy, heresy, catholicism, treason, lese majesty, wartime secrecy, etc. I think the blasphemy law is still active.
Really, the main change is elsewhere. Britain’s law used to be a list of things that were banned. Everything else was a liberty. The difference has been in the introduction of required results. All the “-ism” laws are structured to require a particular result rather than prevent named illegal activity. The “human rights” law particularly so, to a metalevel – the ECHR is “non-exhausive”.
I’ve always believed that when the liberals take over, you will be permitted to do whatever you want so long as it is mandatory.
It would be ironic to see Muslims protesting about the new legislation along with we libertarians. There push to outlaw anything that criticises them has surely turned round and bit em’ on the collective rump.
Only thing sweeter would be if that twit the Yazzmonster got done as well.
I agree that BNP and other extreme parties should be allowed at debates like Question Time…
They did had the chap from Christian Voice on the other day. He didn’t make for good TV being pretty incoherent and rambling. Which of course is the point in many ways.
I have been struck with how often all the members of the panel on QT or Any Questions agree with each other – I remember particularly all five panellists saying they thought the TV licence was a marvellous instutution. It’s a sad indictment of the uniformity of permitted opinions on the BBC.
I did put Perry de Havilland’s name forward for Question Time via the “Suggest a panellist” page on the QT website. I assume he was never asked – surprise, that.
See the letter by eminent Muslims in the Times today:
Islam and homosexuals
Whilst most of it is largely statement of fact, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about the final two sentences. It’s like the converse of the “Glass Houses proverb.
Ron – They are not “eminent” Muslims. They’re just a bunch of taqqya and kitman practitioners in the Islamic grievance industry. This is a typical taqqya and kitman letter – inclusive, sounds eminently reasonable if you don’t think about it too much, offered in a spirit of amity. All part of the Da’wa.
Would you consider this(Link) as accepted under the absolute freedom of speech?
Would you consider Danish Muslims to be free to call for the death of the editor who published the anti-Muhammad cartoons?
Where do you draw the line – if at all?
Would we rather consider the “freedom of speech” no different in principle from just “freedom” and say that it cannot exist in an absolute form without affecting someone else’s freedom (e.g. the fists and the nose allegory)? And we will have to rely on the state institutions to refine their criteria as to limits of that freedom, as it is done with anything else (e.g. violence)?
Of interest, a Norwegian paper translated the article from the Danish paper, and the cartoons, so now they are also getting death threats. The Danish paper has not given the rights to any other publications to run the cartoons, because they feared that the accompanying copy other papers wrote might be incendiary. However, the Norwegian paper offered to translate and run the original article, which is why they got the rights.
Of course, the Danes and the Norwegians are Vikings. Blair’s a hissy little nancy.
Would you consider this(Link) as accepted under the absolute freedom of speech?
Some of it yes, some of it no. Urging someone to kill other people in circumstances where you might be taken seriously is plainly not on. Expressing a general approval of their death, of the “good riddance” is variety, is probably OK.
Approving of killers is harder to draw the line: whether it amounts to incitement depends very closely on the circumstances. Would calling for a war be adjudged incitement to murder? I doubt it. Should it?
The headlined assertion on the article you link to, that the Holocaust was a punishment from God, is a belief held by some ultra-orthodox Jews, although their grounds for saying so are not the same as abu Hamza’s.
I would leave the title of the article on the concious of the Times editors, the most important bit of it is not the Holocaust (by the way – did you notice how easily they switch between the denial of Holocaust existence and the “punishment from God” thing?) but the call for murder.
“Killing a kuffar for any reason, you can say it is OK even if there is no reason for it.”
Can you tell the difference between the expression of opinion and call for killing? “Jews deserve to die” – call for killing? How about “My opinion is that in Holocaust Jews got what they deserved”? In what category this one falls? Is is meant to justify the killing of Jews in the present as well?
As one of the commentators stated – the extremes illustrate the problem the best. It seems that this extreme illustrates that the absolute “freedom of speech” is as much a nonsense as any other absolute freedom. Somewhere between the “gay horse” and the calls to kill those who license alcohol (same article) there is a line which cannot be crossed, and the state is there to keep it this way. We’ll have to cry loud if Lynette Burrows or Iqbal Sacranie actually get prosecuted for what they have said on homosexuals, but beforehand we must give the authorities chance to try and figure out what is permissible and what is not, and they only can do it by practising the real cases. I think that the whole issue so far is breaking into an open door.
They cannot possibly charge with Lynette Burrows with anything. She has no objection to legalising civil partnerships between gays. She only said she didn’t think that, if a pair of gays were adopting a child, she didn’t think they should be given a boy – given that all children up for adoption are very vulnerable.
She also added that she didn’t think a straight man, possibly sharing a house with another straight man, should be given a little girl.
I cannot imagine who would be barking enough to charge her with anything.