Such efforts focus not on the right to speak but on the possible reaction to speech — a fundamental change in the treatment of free speech in the West. The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. Our entire society is being treated as a crowded theater, and talking about whole subjects is now akin to shouting “fire!”Turley identifies 4 rationales used by speech-restricting advocates:
- Speech is blasphemous — cracking down on criticism of religions and religious leaders;
- Speech is hateful — elevating hateful expression to a criminal act;
- Speech is discriminatory — expanding anti-discrimination laws to include public statements deemed insulting or derogatory to any group, race or gender; and
- Speech is deceitful — expanding consumer laws (designed to protect consumers from deceptions intended to achieve financial gain) to "criminalize lies told with the intent to obtain any undefined 'tangible benefit'." Adds Turley, "The dangers are obvious. Government officials have long labeled whistleblowers, reporters and critics as “liars” who distort their actions or words. If the government can define what is a lie, it can define what is the truth."
The very right that laid the foundation for Western civilization is increasingly viewed as a nuisance, if not a threat. Whether speech is deemed inflammatory or hateful or discriminatory or simply false, society is denying speech rights in the name of tolerance, enforcing mutual respect through categorical censorship.
A must-read for anyone who still believes in the Bill of Rights:
Shut Up and Play Nice: How the Western World is Limiting Free Speech by Jonathan Turley, Washington Post, October 12, 2012.
In the sad new world of restricted speech, would a cartoon like this one about 14-year-old Malala Yousafza be outlawed?
No comments:
Post a Comment