Technorati Profile
On Freedom of Speech
It took me a long time to decide to write something regarding the recent debate of freedom of speech vs. racism. Besides the fact that I'm pretty tied up lately, this procrastination was also caused by knowing (even before I begin) that I am no fan of either camp. That puts me in the pretty uncomfortable position of having to argue both for and against freedom of speech, the result of which is a tepid and uninspiring list at best or a exercise in waffling at worst. I must also confess that I haven't been keeping up with the discussion at the point of origin and other assorted blogs, but rather quickly read two somewhat similar viewpoints. So if I rehash some argument that's already been flogged to death... well, you know why.
First off, MercerMachine summed up his thoughts pretty well. To summarize, he is against making racist comments illegal because a) it is a quasi-solution which does not address racism itself, merely its symptoms (racist speech) b) it encourages a culture of fear and ultimately tamps down active citizenry. He suggests employing discourse as the main channel of rehabilitation (if I'm not wrong, E@L agrees as well) and the court of public opinion as the main channel of enforcement.
Ideologically, I agree that this is the best solution. Being able to talk and reason a way out of social ills, to self-police, is a utopian landscape. Pragmatically (I just have to use this word huh) however, I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
First of all, it assumes that everyone, those who commit crimes and those who judge them (i.e., the public), is rational and will respond to reason. Many times however, we forget that one brand of reason is seldom universal. Hence we have North Korea, KKK, wive beaters, Mac lovers. Reason all you want, but I doubt any of them will have a change in heart simply as a result of intellectual discourse (well, maybe there's hope yet for the Mac lovers). Furthermore, regardless of one's best intentions, the court of public opinion can well manifest itself as a lynch mob, operating in shadow or with full legal impunity and authority or otherwise. I may be a little extreme, but no one familiar with the Internet should be entirely foreign to flame wars and blogstorms. Being in the majority at any one time is not logically equivalent to being right or just, and for every one person who was flamed for being offensive, I can probably find another who was flamed for just speaking his/ her mind. When the "public police" becomes the perpetrator, or when the court of public opinion fails, to whom shall the accused turn? I say work out these kinks, and only then take a bet on human nature and public policing. (Ok wait, I just remembered MercerMachine think those guys should be caned and shipped off for international community service. I happen to think so myself. More of us around and they will be, under a law of public opinion. Ironically, this still makes racist speech a crime, with even harsher punishment than before.)
It is also argued that making racist speech a crime solves only the surface symptoms, but not the root (racist thoughts/ nature). This is particularly insidious because it gives racist thoughts a chance to further fester undetected. By extension then, paracetamol, chlorpheniramine, and countless other drugs should logically be avoided, since they treat only the surface symptoms. Punishing crimes like murder, rape and battery should similarly be banned, as they only deal with deviant behaviour rather than deviant thoughts. My opinion is that making racist speech a crime is not exclusive with eradicating racist thoughts. The former sets the boundary between right and wrong and enforces it while the latter can be carried out by discourse, education and debate targeted at the general public. Having the boundary does not preclude discourse, not if one enters it with genuine respect that the boundary presumably seeks to instil in the first place (i.e., making not flushing a crime does not mean one cannot enter a debate about whether it should be a crime, while making sure he flushes the toilet in the meantime. Which is not to say that everyone do flush, but I digress).
One could also argue for making a clearer distinction between thought, speech and action, and setting speech aside as a unique category that is beyond thought and still not quite action yet. Law can then be applied to action, discourse to thought and speech, thereby leaving freedom of speech unfettered (actually, I'd think that someone is bound to bring up that a) it's not freedom of speech that's being punished, but rather irresponsible speech. By transitivity, it's irresponsibility that's the issue, not freedom of speech b) speech and action are not entirely distinct all of the times). This brings me to my last point. Leaving the philosophy to others, I don't think absolute freedom of speech is possible or even desirable. Ignoring the merits of driving deviant thoughts underground, is it reasonable to grant impunity to someone vowing a repeat of 911? Is it reasonable not to accost someone who swears he's going to put a bullet through someone else? The line between speech and action is very thin at times. Freedom of speech may be great, but beyond it, there should be a greater responsibility to humankind, if nothing else. I'm not going to sex this up with some sophisticated terms (I bet some philosopher has got that covered- they always do). Neither am I going to perform further research to back up my arguments (unless another week magically appears and my assignments are banished). I am not denying the merits or importance of freedom of speech, merely playing devil's advocate by pointing out that there are always exceptions to the rule*.
It is around these exceptions we dance, not the larger scheme of things.
What of such laws instilling fear in Singaporeans? I shall return to my usual fluffy and facetious (dare I say it: infantile) programming tomorrow and say no more.
Filed under: Musings
*Brain fart: the rule "there are always exceptions to the rule" implies that there is an exception to it as well, making itself a contradiction and therefore necessarily untrue. Huh.
First off, MercerMachine summed up his thoughts pretty well. To summarize, he is against making racist comments illegal because a) it is a quasi-solution which does not address racism itself, merely its symptoms (racist speech) b) it encourages a culture of fear and ultimately tamps down active citizenry. He suggests employing discourse as the main channel of rehabilitation (if I'm not wrong, E@L agrees as well) and the court of public opinion as the main channel of enforcement.
Ideologically, I agree that this is the best solution. Being able to talk and reason a way out of social ills, to self-police, is a utopian landscape. Pragmatically (I just have to use this word huh) however, I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
First of all, it assumes that everyone, those who commit crimes and those who judge them (i.e., the public), is rational and will respond to reason. Many times however, we forget that one brand of reason is seldom universal. Hence we have North Korea, KKK, wive beaters, Mac lovers. Reason all you want, but I doubt any of them will have a change in heart simply as a result of intellectual discourse (well, maybe there's hope yet for the Mac lovers). Furthermore, regardless of one's best intentions, the court of public opinion can well manifest itself as a lynch mob, operating in shadow or with full legal impunity and authority or otherwise. I may be a little extreme, but no one familiar with the Internet should be entirely foreign to flame wars and blogstorms. Being in the majority at any one time is not logically equivalent to being right or just, and for every one person who was flamed for being offensive, I can probably find another who was flamed for just speaking his/ her mind. When the "public police" becomes the perpetrator, or when the court of public opinion fails, to whom shall the accused turn? I say work out these kinks, and only then take a bet on human nature and public policing. (Ok wait, I just remembered MercerMachine think those guys should be caned and shipped off for international community service. I happen to think so myself. More of us around and they will be, under a law of public opinion. Ironically, this still makes racist speech a crime, with even harsher punishment than before.)
It is also argued that making racist speech a crime solves only the surface symptoms, but not the root (racist thoughts/ nature). This is particularly insidious because it gives racist thoughts a chance to further fester undetected. By extension then, paracetamol, chlorpheniramine, and countless other drugs should logically be avoided, since they treat only the surface symptoms. Punishing crimes like murder, rape and battery should similarly be banned, as they only deal with deviant behaviour rather than deviant thoughts. My opinion is that making racist speech a crime is not exclusive with eradicating racist thoughts. The former sets the boundary between right and wrong and enforces it while the latter can be carried out by discourse, education and debate targeted at the general public. Having the boundary does not preclude discourse, not if one enters it with genuine respect that the boundary presumably seeks to instil in the first place (i.e., making not flushing a crime does not mean one cannot enter a debate about whether it should be a crime, while making sure he flushes the toilet in the meantime. Which is not to say that everyone do flush, but I digress).
One could also argue for making a clearer distinction between thought, speech and action, and setting speech aside as a unique category that is beyond thought and still not quite action yet. Law can then be applied to action, discourse to thought and speech, thereby leaving freedom of speech unfettered (actually, I'd think that someone is bound to bring up that a) it's not freedom of speech that's being punished, but rather irresponsible speech. By transitivity, it's irresponsibility that's the issue, not freedom of speech b) speech and action are not entirely distinct all of the times). This brings me to my last point. Leaving the philosophy to others, I don't think absolute freedom of speech is possible or even desirable. Ignoring the merits of driving deviant thoughts underground, is it reasonable to grant impunity to someone vowing a repeat of 911? Is it reasonable not to accost someone who swears he's going to put a bullet through someone else? The line between speech and action is very thin at times. Freedom of speech may be great, but beyond it, there should be a greater responsibility to humankind, if nothing else. I'm not going to sex this up with some sophisticated terms (I bet some philosopher has got that covered- they always do). Neither am I going to perform further research to back up my arguments (unless another week magically appears and my assignments are banished). I am not denying the merits or importance of freedom of speech, merely playing devil's advocate by pointing out that there are always exceptions to the rule*.
It is around these exceptions we dance, not the larger scheme of things.
What of such laws instilling fear in Singaporeans? I shall return to my usual fluffy and facetious (dare I say it: infantile) programming tomorrow and say no more.
Filed under: Musings
*Brain fart: the rule "there are always exceptions to the rule" implies that there is an exception to it as well, making itself a contradiction and therefore necessarily untrue. Huh.
3 Comments
Restrict racist hatespeak through dedicated anti-discrimination laws, not political ones stretched to fit the bill...
I don't really think the sedition act is going to further restrict political discourse much, not when there's a bevy of other laws that do it more effectively. Hell, we cannot even put up satirical placards in public without a license. I acknowledge that the wide scope of the act can induce fear and uncertainty, just that it's removal alone is not sufficient to reverse that.
10 year ago, political stability was probably judged to be more important than political awareness and robustness. For what it's worth, the act is under review, although I get the impression it's going to be even tougher, and possibly more "carte blanche".
Urm, that may be an extension, but by extension I mean a massive stretch. Use a topican solution for a topical problem. Racism isn't topical, its systemic. You can lance buboes all you want, but the patient will still die of bubonic plague.
Otherwise, very nicely written post.
Post a Comment
<< Home