The right to freedom of speech and expression.
The right to free speech is meant to be an absolute right. Meaning that it should have no ifs, ands or buts attached to it. This right exists to ensure that you can say offensive things. The right is not there to protect you from the nice things you say. It’s there to make sure that you can say bad things, and not be punished for it. On paper this right sounds magnificent. A right that allows you to be honest? Excellent. But it doesn’t exist.
Obviously, hate-speech is excluded from the things you are free to say. The use of emotionally charged words which ring up historical grievances is strictly forbidden. This is obviously so in order to prevent people from launching into racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory tirades. This prevents social chaos, easy to understand.
However, this makes the right to free speech a limited right. This contradicts the very value of this right, which lies in its absoluteness. If the right to free speech is meant to cover you in the instance that you say something super offensive, why is it failing in this purpose?
Due to the limits on our “absolute” right to freedom of speech, we are essentially only allowed to say mildly offensive things.
The beauty of freedom of speech lies in its allowance for discourse. If someone says something that you feel insults the very core of your being, you have as much right to defend yourself, and tell that person that they are an idiot/ bigot/ tool. In this way, social issues, stigmas and conditions can be fleshed out honestly and thoroughly.
If limitations do not allow us to express very personal, very controversial viewpoints, then these stay silent. Essentially, our society seems less homophobic than it used to be. But really, it is only VERBALLY less homophobic. People don’t say words like faggot, not because they don’t mean them or intend to hurt with them, but because they can be tried for hate speech.
This isn’t eradicating things like homophobia. It’s sweeping them under a muting rug. And, to boot, making sure that social issues don’t get air, and thus don’t get solved with debate.
I am grateful for freedom of speech, but I am not grateful for the conditions attached to it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Terri! I reckon your spot-on, the ability to offer any 'rights' upon an individual is, and will always be, a vacillating process. Rights, created by people for people are just as subjective and fragmented as some our other great creations... religion, ethnicity, nationalism.
ReplyDeleteI think that most of what you have said is valid and relevant, however, making speculations and concluding on an assumption that suits you is neither justifiable nor fair. There is a possibility that ET may have sodomised his murderer's, however, it is possible that they may have raped him. another possibility is that they may have been his lovers? One cannot conclude without the facts. Murder is never justifiable, despite the fact that he was a monster and the pain that that man caused will never be forgotten.
ReplyDeleteI think that as the youth of today, we should look forward and strive to heal our country, instead of inciting hatred and racism.
I disagree with you regarding the conditions it is attached to, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, enshrines all the rights of South Africans, and one of its main purposes is to protect the minorities within our country. For something to be considered hate speech it must incite harm, if it does not then it is not considered hate speech, it will simply be considered unfair discrimination, eg: faggots. The consequences of “mob mentality” can create havoc in such a fragile country such as ours, which is why it is important to limit the voices of those who want to “incite harm.”
Too true Terri, too true!! Preach my sister!! The paradoxical nature of this right means that it can't do what it wants to do. To use Mike Marais speak, it undermines that which it seeks to assert. I couldn't agree more with your view on prejudice in society - homophobia is a very apt example.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to confront this right that we value so much. We have to use this right to our benefit and confront issues of racism and homophobia and create an atmosphere were all topics are "open". While hate speech is an obstacle to one's absolute right, there can be consequences that encourage public violence. Take Malema's "Kill the Boer" song that has led his followers to confront past issues that apartheid taught.
ReplyDelete