THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION
Secularism allows freedom of expression of opinion. Furthermore, it is a core
principle of secularism.
The freedom of expression is human expression of opinion. "I regard homosexuals as bad" may be protected but how can you protect, "God tells me that they are bad"? See how one is expressing your view while the other is expressing God's. You cannot really speak for God and freedom of expression bans people setting themselves up to be the representative of x and thinking they can speak for x.
Obviously as a belief is stronger than an opinion and
more evidence-based, a belief enjoys more value and right of expression than an
opinion. That is not very relevant to law which is a pity and down to the fact
that you cannot know if a person really believes what they say they do.
Freedom of speech is not really a genuine human right. Freedom to express one's
belief or opinion certainly is. The two are not the same. A person can say
anything they want. But a person cannot express their opinion or belief unless
it is their sincere opinion or their belief.
Freedom of speech should mean freedom of expression. That is what this website
means by freedom of speech.
Taking responsibility for what you say means you have to be open to being
corrected.
Criminalisation of abusive speech is wrong. Only defamation and threats of
violence and inciting people to commit murder should be criminalised if any
abusive speech should be. But even then the person is not silenced but
challenged and exposed. Nobody stops you from using hate speech but you
will have to pay a price if you do.
Secularism allows religion and everybody freedom of expression provided it does
not call for violence or illegal activity or oppose the common and public good.
The exception is when the state is sure it can prevent a religion's statements
from resulting in violence or crime. That is why there is no room for attempts
to make expression of the doctrines of militant Islam illegal.
In the real world, people should be allowed to call for violence and be allowed
to make racist statements etc. The law can decree that it is only allowed if a
more reasonable voice is immediately made available. Suppose a Muslim cleric
comes to Ireland to ask for the destruction of the Catholic clergy. Let him ask
but make sure there are leaflets or a speaker to give the other side. Freedom of
speech must be allowed completely as long as steps are taken to prevent and
arrest any damage done.
All people have a right to speak their minds. If they do, nobody should take
offence but just ask why they say such things and gently correct them if they
think they are wrong. We must sit down with those people we do not see eye to
eye with and talk. Nothing is solved by silence.
If we are confident in the power of truth we will not react violently should
somebody say something we consider outrageous. The problem lies in us not in
what was said.
If people use the right of freedom of expression they must admit us the right to
express disagreement with them. The right to freedom of expression does not mean
we must let anybody away with abusing it. Those in that category are:
People who keep contradicting themselves - if a person says they believe or
think something they owe us the duty of being consistent. For example, we must
complain if somebody says chance made all things while claiming to believe in
God.
People who only pretend to believe or think what they say they believe or think.
People cannot believe anything contradictory.
People who tell those who express their knowledge or belief, "That is your
opinion". They have no right to decide that it is an opinion unless they can
show that you don't have sufficient evidence. If you don't, then you don't know
what you claim to know and you don't believe what you claim to believe. To call
knowledge or belief an opinion is insulting and disrespectful. An opinion is
only what you think - it is weaker than belief or knowledge.
The Declaration of Human Rights goes, "Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers."
This actually opposes religious freedom in the sense that though it allows
religious opinion it does not mention or protect religious belief. Belief and
opinion are not the same thing and Christianity and Islam insist that their
doctrines are more than just opinions.
However secularism agrees that religious opinions should be respected which
means regarding them as mere opinions. It means refusing to mock or ridicule
those who hold them. It allows for politely challenging those opinions.
Helping a person see for themselves is not interference. What is interference is
telling them lies or manipulating them or threatening them to change their
beliefs. Much religion is in violation of this declaration. Catholicism's
distortion of the truth and its desire to get an unfair advantage over young
children to make them believers is against this right.
Should a secular state allow consenting adults to say handle deadly snakes and
drink poison during religious services? It certainly should not allow adults to
be helped to do these stupid things. If a minister provides the poison and you
take it then he or she needs to be made to answer for it before the law.
And the cultists who handle the snakes and ingest the poison are not really
consenting adults. They think God's magic is going to protect them. If you marry
your girlfriend's twin instead of her and you think it is her you are not a
consenting adult for you don't know the full facts. Secularism does not let
religion gravely harm people even if they consent.
Catholics say that abortion is never needed to save a life though this view is
never suggested in peer reviewed studies. They should be penalised for giving
scientific misinformation. A fake scientist would have to account for it to the
law and so should they.
The common view is that your views are your own business but uttering them is
different and is everybody's business for you make it so. Given that people
often attack or discriminate against others such as Muslims or pagans or gays,
speech that encourages that action should be criticised. It should be
challenged. But not banned.
Expressing a view makes it the business of others particularly those to whom you
expressed it. Thus using, "I have a right to my opinion" when used to stop a
challenge or as an excuse for not listening to others is not acceptable.
Why is freedom of speech so important?
Because it can be. Dangerous and stupid and superstitious views should not
be suppressed, but neither should they be deliberately given a platform to
spread.
Because truth involves not only discovering what views to
accept but which ones to reject. You need to hear nonsense before you can
dismiss it.
Because if freedom of speech is suppressed you will never be sure if you are
being told the truth about anything. Truth will suffer and be lost. It will
inspire little or no confidence.
Because truth matters. People need truth before they can make proper choices.
People have a right to the truth even if they do not like hearing it.
The reason you have the right to express a view even if it is wrong is so that
it can be put out there for examination. It needs to be considered to see if it
is true or not.
Freedom of speech presupposes that truth is good for us even if it is not always
pleasant. It presupposes that truth is important in itself. Nonsense can never
be equal in value to a fact.
X has freedom of speech to say what is nonsense. Y has freedom of speech to say
what the truth is. Does it follow that both have an equal right to freedom of
speech? Practically speaking the answer is yes. In principle, if a choice is
forced on you to respect X or Y's freedom of speech you must choose Y. This is
hypothetical but it shows that the freedom of speech given to X is somewhat
grudging.
The lesson is to make sure you have your facts right before you speak and your
confidence will soar. You don't want to go through life with a freedom of speech
that is tolerated grudgingly because you are full of nonsense. This is another
reason why truth is so important.
Superstition and religion even if they say they uphold freedom of speech still
work against it. Anything that confuses people hinders freedom of speech. It
makes it harder for the intelligent voice to be heard. It is hard enough to
decide what needs to be done for say the health service without religion and
superstition creating controversies and issues and moaning about being deprived
of rights they do not have. Religion and superstition are based on the notion
that they have information from a higher intelligence and their claims are not
testable and that is where the danger is. But they waste time and cause trouble
by accusing people who contradict them of offending them.
FINALLY
The common view is that your views are your own business but uttering them is
different and is everybody's business for you make it so. Defending an
individual’s free speech does not mean defending an individual’s ideas. It
means there is a right to refute them firmly. Given that people often
attack or discriminate against some minorities, speech that encourages that
action should be criticised severely but not banned.