I'm not quite sure how things work with this, but I've been directed to 'jump right in' so I've decided to create this forum where I will post my articles.
Imperium's Articles
- Thread starter Imperium
- Start date
Free Speech In a Democracy
-Part of Imperium’s “Freedoms” Series
We take it for granted, we use it to say the silliest of things, and to start parties with policies more about baked goods than real agendas. Its a fundamental freedom, and one that we rarely even think of, but perhaps we should take a second to consider it every now and again.
How far should this freedom extend? It’s a contentious question that no two democracies answer in precisely the same way.
Take the United States, where your first amendment allows you to say whatever you want, wherever you want. Right? Well, almost. You can’t march into the President’s office and start mouthing off, nor can you slander anyone, and if I were you I wouldn’t dare to mention the word ‘bomb’ in any major transit route. But you have the first amendment! Surely all these rules are unconstitutional?!?! Again, the answer is a little unclear. The Courts have stayed unsettlingly quiet on the question of defamation and the first amendment, which acts as a subtle censor on the Press. But it is generally understood that where there is a conflict between the rights to not be slandered, and the right to free speech, vast sums of money are spent on legal fees.
How about the United Kingdom? Ranked more democratic than the United States, surely one of the oldest constitutional democracies on the planet has managed to get Free Speech, of all things, right? Would it surprise you to find out that there is no right of free speech in the UK? My home country has only one law which guarantees free speech, and that comes from the European Declaration of Human Rights, which a great many Brits want to see repealed. So, how does this work then? Britain is so old, half of its rules aren’t really laws, they are common law traditions; never broken but strictly speaking unenforceable. In the UK your right to free speech is restricted quite a bit; you can’t cause a public disturbance by using foul language to insult or disturb for example- a concept that upsets Americans who don’t realise that they have no true free speech even in their home land. (Hence why we hear stories of angry Texans getting arrested in the UK whilst claiming their first amendment rights). And yet, Britain is considered one of the most free countries on the planet. Why? Because, in its weirdness and quirks, its flexible and somewhat unwritten laws offer more freedom for courts to work. There has never been an issue for the courts in justifying defamation laws against free speech, because defamation makes sense and our free speech is malleable under the circumstances.
In fact, is it even possible to have absolute free speech? Never any consequences for saying things, no matter where we say them? Should we be able to stand up in the galleries of courtrooms and shout our thoughts for all to hear, with no consequences? Or to storm into our parliaments and senates, and accuse our politicians directly? Clearly not, this would cause chaos.
But we need a balance, a way to ensure we have our ability to think, speak and petition without fear of redress by those who dislike opposition. Hence why I consider free speech to be a negative right, or a subordinate right. That means our right to free speech extends only as far as it doesn’t impinge the rights of others. We cannot use our free speech to harass, or abuse, or call for attacks upon. These things are not free speech, they are attacking other rights. And to abuse them is to abuse the core of democracy, and to hack at the foundations of free speech itself.
But, as with every rule, there must be an exception. A circumstance where free speech becomes the superior right and supersedes some, if not all, other rights. And that circumstance is politics. Our politicians, whether they be here in Europeia, or in the real world, purport to have the right to rule over us and to make decisions on our behalf. And by taking the decision to enter that arena, they consent to bear all forms of free speech with magnanimity; and not to run to the courts, for when the courts are called upon to punish political free speech, then is democracy challenged in a dangerous way.
-Part of Imperium’s “Freedoms” Series
We take it for granted, we use it to say the silliest of things, and to start parties with policies more about baked goods than real agendas. Its a fundamental freedom, and one that we rarely even think of, but perhaps we should take a second to consider it every now and again.
How far should this freedom extend? It’s a contentious question that no two democracies answer in precisely the same way.
Take the United States, where your first amendment allows you to say whatever you want, wherever you want. Right? Well, almost. You can’t march into the President’s office and start mouthing off, nor can you slander anyone, and if I were you I wouldn’t dare to mention the word ‘bomb’ in any major transit route. But you have the first amendment! Surely all these rules are unconstitutional?!?! Again, the answer is a little unclear. The Courts have stayed unsettlingly quiet on the question of defamation and the first amendment, which acts as a subtle censor on the Press. But it is generally understood that where there is a conflict between the rights to not be slandered, and the right to free speech, vast sums of money are spent on legal fees.
How about the United Kingdom? Ranked more democratic than the United States, surely one of the oldest constitutional democracies on the planet has managed to get Free Speech, of all things, right? Would it surprise you to find out that there is no right of free speech in the UK? My home country has only one law which guarantees free speech, and that comes from the European Declaration of Human Rights, which a great many Brits want to see repealed. So, how does this work then? Britain is so old, half of its rules aren’t really laws, they are common law traditions; never broken but strictly speaking unenforceable. In the UK your right to free speech is restricted quite a bit; you can’t cause a public disturbance by using foul language to insult or disturb for example- a concept that upsets Americans who don’t realise that they have no true free speech even in their home land. (Hence why we hear stories of angry Texans getting arrested in the UK whilst claiming their first amendment rights). And yet, Britain is considered one of the most free countries on the planet. Why? Because, in its weirdness and quirks, its flexible and somewhat unwritten laws offer more freedom for courts to work. There has never been an issue for the courts in justifying defamation laws against free speech, because defamation makes sense and our free speech is malleable under the circumstances.
In fact, is it even possible to have absolute free speech? Never any consequences for saying things, no matter where we say them? Should we be able to stand up in the galleries of courtrooms and shout our thoughts for all to hear, with no consequences? Or to storm into our parliaments and senates, and accuse our politicians directly? Clearly not, this would cause chaos.
But we need a balance, a way to ensure we have our ability to think, speak and petition without fear of redress by those who dislike opposition. Hence why I consider free speech to be a negative right, or a subordinate right. That means our right to free speech extends only as far as it doesn’t impinge the rights of others. We cannot use our free speech to harass, or abuse, or call for attacks upon. These things are not free speech, they are attacking other rights. And to abuse them is to abuse the core of democracy, and to hack at the foundations of free speech itself.
But, as with every rule, there must be an exception. A circumstance where free speech becomes the superior right and supersedes some, if not all, other rights. And that circumstance is politics. Our politicians, whether they be here in Europeia, or in the real world, purport to have the right to rule over us and to make decisions on our behalf. And by taking the decision to enter that arena, they consent to bear all forms of free speech with magnanimity; and not to run to the courts, for when the courts are called upon to punish political free speech, then is democracy challenged in a dangerous way.
Yuri R. Somerset
Member
Seems good, I'll read it again later after coffee. If you don't mind though from now on just start a new thread for your articles to keep the discussions separate.
Yuri R. Somerset
Member
Thank you!
Ask RZM, he might do something with it..I wouldn't know though. But this is a great article!Imperium said:
Hey, I finally found the article about the Texan being arrested for swearing that I mentioned in my article, everyone should give it a read, its brilliant:
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2011/12/notes-from-the-frontline-the-a-hole-who-dropped-the-n-bomb/
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2011/12/notes-from-the-frontline-the-a-hole-who-dropped-the-n-bomb/
I think I read an article about this on 'The Week', but it may have been something similiar. Brilliantly written article.Imperium said: