We’ve noticed that the Runs is carrying an excellent video of a speech by Rowan Atkinson regarding the Freedom of speech. It reminded me of Zizek’s concept of tolerance as a pseudo-principle. Freedom of speech is really a thorny issue in today’s world because of the censorious instincts that are being bred by our modern idea of “tolerance”. Political correctness, tolerance and the relativism of values – there’s much more than immediate political points to be won by discussing them.
I dare add that within the legal community the tendency to over-regulate is a curse that is on the increase. It is an easy “solution” that takes advantage of the manifest weakness in the democratic power-equilibrium. Law making was never meant to be a populist, vote-winning exercise. Freedom of speech (and not the right to insult) is yet another victim of this systemic weakness that has been exaggerated by the onslaught of conspiracy theorists and end-of-days doomsayers who still revel in fantasies about the iron fist of the law.
One reply on “Freedom of speech”
The Bean position supports the repeal of the section of British law which declares insult an offence. If there is no right to insult then why should the law be changed? Is freedom of expression an absolute right or is this absolute right a contradiction in terms and therefore there must be limits to this right ?
For the benefit of readers I reproduce the British law which by the way has not been enacted recently.
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby