Does freedom of speech has its limit?

Should freedom of speech has its limit?

Event: Freedom of Speech or the Right to offend?

Time: 18:30-20:30, 11/02/15 in UK

Venue: Appleton Tower, Lecture Theatre 2

I just came back from a symposium (debate/discussion) discussing if there should be any limit of freedom of speech, which was apparently inspired by the recent attack on Charlie Hebdo during January; and it was really fantastic! I am going to share with you guys about what I have learnt from the symposium.

There are two sides in this debate. One side insists on the stance of radical free speech, meaning everyone is free to express any opinion, including the freedom to offence. The main argument of this stance is the concern over credibility of the authority. If we grant government the right to monitor the limit of free speech, citizen’s freedom might be potentially eroded. Another minor argument is that nothing should be free from scrutiny or offence, including Islam. Thought they did not make this point that clear, I suppose they were arguing that freedom to critique for everything is the momentum for societal improvement. The underlying concern of both arguments was that of slippery slope; if we set a precedence of limit over free speech, we will not know where the stopping point is. A speaker admitted that there is absolutely a structural problem of Muslim community over discrimination and less opportunity to engage in mainstream dialogue, we should seek for the alternative rather than limiting free speech.

Another side attaches more emphasis on the structural concern. If we can agree that Muslim are the disadvantaged who are facing discrimination in Western countries, an offence towards their religion only serves to humiliate them and reinforce the existing superstructure of inequality (including stereotype over different groups), which is dominated by white-male-middle class. An offence over Catholic in western countries will not create such problems because they are privileged majority; however, it is a complete different case when it comes to minority. According to this principle, an offence over Catholic should not be allowed in Muslim-majority country. An audience argued that freedom of speech itself should have and have already had its limit per se, especially when we think about law against hate speech and defamation (slander/libel). Language/thought can be exploited as a fatal weapon which might endanger the whole society; Nazism is the case in point. Very often, we just cannot rely on rationality of ordinary people to offset such potential danger and that is why free speech should be restricted.

The most important thing I learnt from this symposium is that there is always a tension between freedom of civil society and governmental control. When a society prioritise freedom, a society will naturally develop based on its existing structure and therefore widen its existing inequality. However, when we need to rely on government power to redress such injustice or inequality, the power of government will inevitably be expanded, which is always undesirable for those believing in the principle of liberal democracy. Since there is always a tension between these two legitimate yet conflicting views, I believe that none of them can be applied universally; applicability of these principles always relies on different contexts. Personally, I think that western countries should restrict free speech against Muslim; yet, we should definitely employ different principle in authoritarian state like Malaysia.