Freedom is used in different senses. Speech wrapped in sin is not truly free because it is already bound, and so we should always strive against such speech for our own sakes. However, the freedom of speech that we conceive of as a right is a freedom that can be recognized publicly. It is a right insofar as we are not permitted to forcibly restrain others from exercising it. Neither of these senses really applies to the following use of free speech:
"Asians are all trash. You can call me racist, but I have free speech."
Calling someone a racist is not really forcibly restraining that speech. Rather, it is exercising one's own speech. However, the fact that the racist in question is already bound by hir speech does not imply that forcible restraint is now permitted. The racist's use of the term "free speech" appears, actually, to mean "an opinion which cannot be challenged in any way" which is rubbish.
Strict lies are different. But we could consider a progression of statements that I think moves from clearly beyond the bounds of (what ought to be) protected speech to clearly within those bounds.
1. Johnny Carson was a murderer.
2. The Asians of East London are aiding and abetting known terrorists.
3. All these Asians moving into town are helping terrorists.
4. Asians are getting privileges they don't deserve.
Of course, actual incitement to violence should not be protected under free speech, and this, I am sure, depends largely on the context and the likely way that the statement can be construed.
Here's a problem: Freedom of speech does not apply in certain situations where the speech causes harm (such as slander or incitement to violence). However, sometimes psychological harm is included (such as harassment). But just about every kind of political speech has the potential to cause harm. So in saying either, "cutting funding for education will be beneficial to this nation," or "raising funding for education will be beneficial to this nation," presumably one of these is wrong (perhaps even both) but both can be influential with regard to whether funding actually is increased or decreased. Thus, the entire nation may be harmed because enough people made such statements. But claiming that one of these ought to be forbidden under the law is absolutely absurd and quite dangerous. What if the person who wants to cut funding for education can be shown to have had a disfunctional childhood that has led him to regard children rather poorly? In this sense, his judgment is possibly not functioning optimally, and it may be by his own choice that he ignores data pointing to the contrary. Thus, calling it a lie (and a lie he tells himself as well) is not entirely inaccurate.
And what of psychological harm on a mass scale? What if a lot of people find every word Howard Stern says to be deeply, deeply troubling (a harm in itself)? What if they even think that it is a sign of Mr Stern's excessive sense of anger, and believe that this kind of anger (if it were to spread) would be detrimental to the nation in the following ways:
1. It will produce a society of people who judge irrationally and look to blame others for their problems (maybe other races?)
2. It will increase violent tendencies (it's reasonable to believe that anger would do this, I think).
Would that be justification for restricting the speech? |
