In a previous blog post I wrote a concise but complete definition of what I understand the concept of freedom of speech, the right to free speech, to be, in a short and concise format that's handy to refer to. This definition consisted of four rules. In these subsequent posts I'm delving deeper into each rule. This post is about rule 4, which said:
These rights should be universal (ie. they apply to everybody equally regardless of anything) and inalienable, ie. irrevocable (these rights cannot be taken away from anybody, no matter the circumstances and no matter what they may or may not have done, or who they are).
This is actually one of the most important aspects of the principle of the fundamental right to free speech, and it's something that I have seen even some fervent advocates of free speech forget.
Every single person must have the same right to free speech (all the rules I have delineated should apply) as everybody else, no matter what. It does not matter who that person is, what the opinions of that person are, or what that person might or might not have done. No person shall ever lose these rights, no matter what the circumstances.
When it comes to the legal aspect of free speech, in some situations being able to express one's opinions may be hindered by circumstances. For example, if you are incarcerated because of committing a crime, your ability to go to a public forum to express your opinions may be significantly lessened. However, whenever there are reasonable avenues of communication (such as, for example, writing letters to family or the press, or someone else), the person must not be actively stopped from using those avenues in order to stop him or her from expressing his or her opinions. While the means of communication may be lessened by circumstances, nevertheless the government must never rule that "you cannot communicate any more of your opinions to anybody, or you will be punished further". The right to free speech has not been lost because of the crime, and therefore the person cannot be punished if he or she does engage in that right in some manner.
When it comes to the philosophical principle, in other words the ideal that one promotes, advocates for and defends, this rule is even more important than that. If you are a free speech advocate, someone who supports and defends people's right to free speech, you should never advocate for or support the removal of this right from anybody, in any situation, no matter what that person may have done and how much you detest and loathe that person.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, attributing the sentiment to Voltaire, summarized this principle extraordinarily beautifully: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The most magnificent example of this principle that I know of is the story of one of the lawyers of the ACLU (back when that organization actually cared about civil rights and hadn't been taken over by far-leftist zealots). Some time in the 1970's a group of neonazis (actual neonazis) organized a protest against some kind of Holocaust memorial. They were prosecuted for this protest.
The ACLU sent one of their lawyers to defend them. This lawyer is a Jewish man. He successfully defended them and they were acquitted of all charges.
In an interview he was asked why he, as a Jewish man, defended those people. He answered, paraphrasing: "I abhor what those people believe, but they have the same right to free speech as everybody else."
Unfortunately, not every free speech advocate has understood this, nor got the memo. I have seen very fervent advocates of free speech, who have made several YouTube videos defending this right for many people, making very well-written and thoughtful speeches... turn completely around and advocate for the complete removal of this right, ie. a complete "deplatforming", from someone they detest, because of the crimes of that person. Not just the removal of illegal and infringing videos from that person, but the removal of all videos from that person (even those that have absolutely nothing objectionable) and the lifetime banning of that person from all social media and video sharing websites.
This is pure hypocrisy, and goes completely against the principle of free speech. Your support for free speech is not tested when you need to defend someone you like. It's only truly tested when you need to defend someone you absolutely hate and loathe and find absolutely despicable.
Comments
Post a Comment