2. Perspectives on Freedom of Speech

Background

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression." Commonly known as "the freedom of speech," it confirms the right of citizens to express their thoughts through speech, writing, print, and other forms of communication.

But the Charter also entitles government to place reasonable limits on free speech so as to discourage communications that may do harm to certain groups or individuals. In addition, a separate law specifically prohibits expressions that promote hatred or violence against an identifiable group. Thus, while one set of rules protects freedom of speech, other rules place limits on expression.

At various times in our lives, each of us may need to decide which is the greater social good - freedom of speech or freedom from certain kinds of speech. Some will remain steadily committed to a particular viewpoint, while others will change their viewpoint over time. The following paragraphs offer opposing perspectives on freedom of speech. Which position would you choose? Is there a middle ground? If so, where is it?

Some censorship is necessary

As you read, take note of the reasons given for restricting free speech.

Many Canadians believe that unlimited freedom of expression is neither possible nor desirable in any society. Unrestricted freedom of speech, they argue, would make social life intolerable. People simply cannot be allowed to express every offensive notion that comes into their heads. Not only can certain kinds of expressions cause pain, intolerant opinions may encourage discrimination against members of identifiable groups. Repeated often enough, hateful expressions and beliefs can demean the victims, obstruct their life chances and extinguish hope. The effects of defamatory talk can even span generations.

The more something is repeated about a person or a group, the more it is taken as being factual - even when the information has absolutely no basis in truth. Once such a belief takes hold, people will react to the person or members of the victimized group as if these tales are true.

For example, when a group is customarily identified as "dirty liars and thieves" it will be generally assumed that every member of that group cannot be trusted. In practical terms, this can affect where such people may live, whether they'll be able to get bank loans or credit, their schooling, the quality of medical care they receive, and even the kinds of jobs they may hold.

The opposite pattern can occur as well. Individuals and groups perceived as being superior, will gain advantages over others. In short, unfounded but widespread claims can sometimes lead to discrimination.

For these reasons, many believe that in our multicultural society offensive labels and expressions must be outlawed. They are convinced that by eliminating certain words and phrases from our spoken vocabulary we can rid our society of mistaken and hostile beliefs about various groups of people. They assume that the result of such vigilance will be a compassionate society where all citizens are treated with respect.

In fact, in recent years Canadians in all walks of life have been actively discouraged from using "politically incorrect" language. Such language, while not actually illegal, is perceived as being discourteous. So, out of consideration for various groups, certain words, phrases, labels and ideas have been disallowed in the workplace, in public institutions and in printed matter. Currently, in some places, use of politically incorrect language can result in fairly severe penalties.

Advocates of limited free speech believe that a compassionate society cannot exist without some official censorship. Therefore, in their opinion, laws that make it possible to prosecute those who promote active hostility against particular groups are absolutely necessary.

They argue that if we are to achieve a society without prejudice, a society without racism, sexism, and other kinds of group bashing, offensive ideas and expressions must be punishable by law. In their view the complex task of sorting acceptable from unacceptable ideas or expressions and the matter of determining where to draw the line on free speech is best left to authorities.

Uphold free speech

As you read, identify the social benefits of free speech and the drawbacks of censorship.

Censorship and legal penalties for certain kinds of speech are a source of deep concern for advocates of free speech. In their view, when our expressions and beliefs can be monitored and suppressed, individual dignity and independence are threatened. Censorship creates fear, and fear inhibits our reasoning and relations with others.

There is also no evidence that prohibition of certain kinds of speech will eradicate hate in society. Linguists have observed that when certain words or expressions are banned or discouraged, people just replace forbidden expressions with new terms. So the result of outlawing certain words or figures of speech is likely to be a succession of newly coined offensive terms.

Thus instead of eliminating prejudice, censorship can actually help enlarge the vocabulary of hate. Advocates of free speech argue that censorship cannot rid society of prejudice because intolerance and bigotry are not caused by speech.

Equally troubling for supporters of free speech are the consequences of censorship on Canadian society in general. As a multicultural community we recognize that cultural diversity makes for differences in beliefs and perspectives. What may not be so obvious is that diverse ideas and viewpoints are vital to a creative, productive and peaceful society. There are several reasons for this.

Free speech encourages us to substitute words for weapons of war. Instead of killing each other because of incompatible beliefs, people can state their views, reach agreement or agree to disagree, through argument and debate. This may sometimes involve harsh words or hurt feelings, but better bruised feelings than bloodshed. Free speech, therefore, provides an important outlet for the social pressures which can arise in society.

Free speech also keeps social unrest at a minimum by allowing ideas and beliefs, no matter how bizarre, to be voiced and evaluated in the public forum. Advocates of free speech point out that discussion creates opportunities for picking apart and criticizing others' opinions.

Open discussion gives rise to fair and full consideration of ideas. It enables us, through debate and analysis, to identify weaknesses in faulty beliefs. Thus, under the light of such public scrutiny wrongheaded notions are likely to wither on the vine. But when muzzled, they are liable to be cultivated in secret, only to erupt when least expected.

Moreover, good government and successful business thrive on open inquiry and criticism. Practical, efficient reforms and improvements decline when citizens are discouraged from expressing their thoughts. Similarly, advances in science and creativity are inseparable from freedom of thought and expression.

We know from history and experience that some of the most unconventional ideas have given rise to important discoveries. If we, as a society, desire the kind of problem solving and innovation that comes from the uninhibited exploration of ideas, we cannot place limits on thought, opinion and expression.

Finally, free speech supporters argue that when we allow a select group to regulate what we may believe, what we may say, and even how we may say it, we stand to lose two very precious things: our ability to judge and our independence.

By allowing others to select our words for us, we cease to exercise our intellect. In a very real sense, we abandon our minds. When we allow others to determine which words and ideas are speakable and which are not, we give over some of our individual political power to those authorities. In so doing, we empower a select group to control the views of the majority.

Concepts for exploration

1. democracy, pluralism, multicultural society

2. dignity, political power, liberty

3. public forum, debate, criticism, inquiry, persuasion

4. prohibition, censorship

5. prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, racism, sexism, ageism

Projects

I. Historical Research

Is the principle of free speech intended to allow individuals the right to express their thoughts without fear of prosecution or, is the purpose to allow only those expressions and notions which are in accord with current values and attitudes?

Find an example of an important idea that was initially dismissed or outlawed, which turned out to have redeeming social value. Alternatively, focus on a disastrous idea or government policy which, because it had been proposed by experts, was adopted without public discussion. Your parents and friends may have suggestions.

Research the example. Write a paper about the policy, idea or opinion. Discuss how society or authorities initially responded to both the idea and to those who presented it. Describe the good or bad outcomes. Explain why censorship or free speech was or was not justified in this situation.

II. Newspaper Research and Discussion

Supporters of free speech argue that when ideas are brought into the open forum, good sense will eventually prevail. But sometimes, even after long discussion, people do not make the best decisions.

Therefore, some argue, instead of wasting time on lengthy public debates, society would be better off leaving decisions to the experts. They, after all, have the specialized knowledge needed to guarantee good decisions.

Check your local newspaper for a recent controversy presently affecting your community. Decide whether the problem should be left to the experts or whether there is any value to public discussion of this matter. Write a persuasive paper outlining the reasons for your position.

III. Research, Analysis, and Debate

Protecting Shared Values

Some people believe that unrestricted freedom of speech leaves the field open to subversive groups whose aim is to alter our shared beliefs and ideals. They feel that most citizens can be led astray easily. In their view, it is important that government agencies identify, monitor, and prosecute those who express and promote dangerous or hateful ideas.

Would you say such anxiety is sufficient reason to place limits on free speech?

What effects might such measures have on tolerance and democracy?

Select an example of a time when a nation's government actively pursued citizens suspected of fostering subversive ideas. Review and analyze the events and the outcomes. Organize two teams to develop persuasive pro and con arguments for debate.

IV. Survey Research, Analysis and Report Preparation Whole class plus small group activities

Are Verbal Abuse and Physical Abuse Equivalent?

Some victims of name-calling claim that offensive labels are verbal weapons. In our society it is illegal to assault people whose faces we don't happen to like. Why should it be any different for speech? In your view, is verbal abuse equivalent to physical violence? Should ethnic name-calling, gender bashing, and ethnic jokes be prohibited by law? Should people be punished for using politically incorrect speech? Recall incidents where such racist or sexist language was used. How was the incident handled?

After a general discussion develop a survey questionnaire to investigate whether people equate verbal abuse with physical abuse.

Survey Research Guidelines: 1. All class members suggest a question that might be asked about this problem.

2. To avoid a lengthy questionnaire, select the nine questions best suited to the subject of investigation. Each question will be followed be a set of possible answers such as "agree, disagree, undecided".

3. The tenth or final question should be open-ended. It should encourage or invite respondents to express their general thoughts or comments on the matter.

4. Decide whether your respondents will all be adults, senior high students, all women, all men, all senior citizens or some combination. Each respondent's category will be noted on the questionnaire (e.g., age group, gender). Respondents names are never included.

5. Determine the total number of respondents. Divide this among the students who will serve as interviewers. No member of the class may be a respondent. Set a deadline for return of completed questionnaires.

6. A team of students should review and analyze responses to the first nine questions. For each question note the number of those who (1) agree; (2) disagree; and (3) are undecided.

7. Another group should review all the responses to the last (open-ended) question. This will require very careful reading to identify common themes in people's statements and comments.

8. All findings should then be presented to the class for interpretation and discussion. Responses of male and female participants might be compared for significant differences.

9. A final report detailing findings and interpretation of the findings might be published in the school or local newspaper.