It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I had difficulty understanding Peter Hitchens due to suffering from moderate to severe hearing loss. Tonight I discovered that Youtube has subtitles! I will listen and post my thoughts.
originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: SovietUnionist
Freedom of speech includes the right to abolish it which is like you say, a paradox.
originally posted by: deliberator
An interesting debate at Oxford University, UK (Aug 2015) on freedom of speech and the right to offend. Below are two speakers, one for the motion and one against. The videos are around 9 minutes each which I will summarise. Although the debate relates to Oxford academia I think it also has wider relevance.
One of the Speakers for the motion
Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spike on-line. Spike is a British Internet magazine focusing on politics, culture and society from a humanist and libertarian viewpoint. The magazine opposes all forms of censorship, by the state or otherwise (Wikipedia).
CAUTION: Some members may find parts of the video offensive.
Brendon uses history to demonstrate how civilised society has evolved through offensiveness giving numerous examples. One example he gives is The Necessity of Atheism, a pamphlet published by Shelley in 1811, with one historical account stating it caused maximum offence. Shelley was subsequently banished from Oxford University.
Brendon states that the oldest foulest form of intolerance is the intolerance of anyone that gives offence. He claims that every leap in history and the freedoms we enjoy today are the product of individuals giving offence against the orthodoxy of that age. He suggests that rather than begrudgingly accepting offence we should view as the motor of human progress, the instigator of liberty, modernity, science and understanding.
He attacks the view that intolerance relating to protecting the individual is progressive. This view is not about protecting individuals he says. It is about protecting an idea which is the mainstream status quo of the 21st century, the idea of human vulnerability. The poisonous notion that humans are fragile and therefore our speech and our actions need to be be policed. "This is a misanthropic, orthodox idea that they promote and protect from criticism in a similar way to how priests used to ring-fence their beliefs from ridicule."
He finishes with the need to move on from the right to offend towards a duty to offend. Anyone who cares for freedom needs to break out of the new form of conformism.
One of the speakers against the motion
Ruvi Ziegler is a lecturer in Law at Reading University, UK. He teaches International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law and also International Refugee Law.
Zuri talks about freedom of expression often equalling actions in its effect. This has the potential for it to affect and also place at risk other fundamental human rights, values and freedoms. He highlights that freedom of speech, if allowed in its entirety, would necessitate a positive duty/obligation by government to respect, protect and fulfil an individual's right to offend, even if that speech has the sole purpose of offence. This duty would also negate the consequences of this type of speech.
Zuri informs the house that International Human Rights Law is firmly on his side of the debate. In all liberal democracies, except the United States, the state does regulate and inhibit the freedom of speech. He goes on to talk about harm from offensive speech highlighting the difference between intentional and incidentary offensive speech. The proponents of free speech need to demonstrate why offensive speech which has absolutely no form of social value, should be protected.
Freedom of expression is a right under International Human Rights law unless it clashes with other fundamental rights, especially if these rights enjoy a higher normative status. According to article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities which therefore may be subject to restrictions including the respect and reputations of others.
Article 20 of ICCPR says that the states must prohibit all forms of advocacy to national racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination or hostility. The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) says that any attempt to abuse the ECHR, including freedom of expression, which is aimed at the destruction of other rights or freedom is prohibited.
Zuri refers to the harm of speech in relation to that which causes violence. This shows that certain words can result in harmful consequences. He gives examples of both the short and long term effects of harmful speech that has no independent social value.
He demonstrates the difference between trying to persuade and trying to injure. Using freedom of speech to advance social legitimate purpose may result in incidental or ancillary harms. There is a relevant consideration with free speech in determining its scope and justifiability of infringement upon it.
He uses an analogy of armed conflict. It is recognised that purposeful harm and destruction of civilians is an evil so it is entirely prohibited. There is qualified prohibition when attacking an intended military target where civilians are incidentally harmed or killed. The reason we distinguish between the two is because we perceive the mere creation of offence through the purpose of action.
Zuri concludes that freedom of speech is not an absolute right because it has the potential to affect competing values, in particular the right and freedoms of others, both in the short and long term. If the sole purpose of freedom of speech is to offend then on balance, the right to engage in this type of speech is socially harmful.
These two speakers made me question if freedom of speech infers unlimited speech. I have always believed that freedom of expression requires social governance in a civilised society. I used to think that the crux of this debate was positive social value. Mr O'Neill's examples of how society has progressed due to offence has made me question this stance.
Competing values in relation to human rights is another argument which does have merit in my opinion. The only problem I have with this is where is the line drawn where something which is offensive becomes harmful.
I have searched over 2 days for the result of this debate but could not find it. For anyone who is interested, further speakers can be found here and here. The last link you need to close the ad in the bottom right corner cross to access the video.
Speakers include Shami Chakrabarti, Peter Hitchens, Kate Brooks and Tim Squirrell.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: deliberator
Thank you for an excellent OP and for the quality of your presentation.
I would have to say that at this, my first review of this matter, I'm deeply offended by the thought that these pretentious pseudo-intellectual toads will decide the future of free speech for the whole of humanity.
However, rather than respond with a rant, I'll take the time to listen to more of the presentations such that perhaps, later, I can respond from a less emotional perspective. S&F
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: deliberator
a reply to: SovietUnionist
Freedom of speech includes the right to abolish it which is like you say, a paradox.
I assume you mean that freedom of speech includes the right to challenge it rather than abolish it.
Marlon Brando's character Kurtz in Apocalypse Now speaks these words that have always stayed with me,
"They train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write # on their airplanes because it's obscene".