Free speech - and why I'm still here

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

Roll your eyes because I suspect that this will be one waffle, but then it

won't be me if I don't say it.

 

The recent white-hot thread threw up - again - peoples' attitudes to free

speech despite every contributor living in political democracies. I've lost

count of the number of Groups I've walked out of because of 'moderation',

not least because I'm all for unfettered free expression. Strange thing,

this free expression. If you look around, most people say they want it but

precious few put their wish into practice. Many others are intellectually

confused and they make statements along the lines of "I believe in free

expression but of course it has limits", "I believe in free expression but

of course one must take care to respect the views of others" and "I believe

in free speech but I really don't think that should be published". Such

statements are literally nonsense because there's no objective means of

deciding what's harmful – and the opportunities to deny free expression

would be legion.

 

It could be argued that mental harm in the form of unhappiness generated by

unwanted words should be reason for censorship. If accepted, that

restriction would mean that nothing critical or contentious in any way could

be said – which is actually an argument against free expression! The same

subjectivity of what's harmful exists here as well, in the form of

moderation. Moderation is a softer version of totalitarianism but has all

the features of it. If the power to prevent free debate is with those with

whom one agrees, the temptation to support censorship is for most next to

irresistible. But to succumb to the temptation is a serious error even at

the level of self-interest.

 

Also, importantly, the attempt to censor is always an admission by the

censor that the views which he or she espouses can't stand the heat of

debate. Those who censor are saying "we have no case to argue, hence we will

prevent the need to argue for it". Anyone confident of their case will argue

it. Indeed, those who are confident of their case and their ability to

debate will positively enjoy doing so

 

Freedom of expression is not about being amiable and pleasant. To be

meaningful, it must be predicated on the idea that no one has the right to

expect another to believe as he does or expect him to pretend to respect

that which he does not respect. Rather it means that another's opinions must

be tolerated unless they are such as to breach the free expression of

others. Free expression is not something that I'm willing to compromise –

unless one wants democracy at a personal level itself compromised. There's

also self interest in defending free expression for all. By defending those

of whom one disapproves, you strengthen your own position because it

increases both your moral authority and strengthens the ground for defending

your right to speak as you will.

 

Free expression is every man's best guarantee of freedom and the social

antiseptic that best keeps a society or forum free from the germ of

authoritarianism.

 

Like I said before, the unwillingness to let myself subject to 'moderation'

has made me walk out of all but probably this Group, and I promise not to

let my yen to learn astrology overbear that.

 

Keep writing y'all,

 

Ramapriya