This site is still in its early stages, but if I wait for it to be nicely polished it will never be published. More topics will be added over time. Launched 26 March 2019. Last Edited 20 February 2020.
What's the difference between free speech and being offensive? Simple - if I agree with you, it's free speech. If I don't, you're being offensive and I'll invoke every law I can to shut you up.
A lot of people think that the right of free speech belongs only to people who say things that they agree with.
Free speech means allowing people to say what they want, even if we don't agree with it. There was a time, in this country, when free speech reigned supreme. Everyone could say what they liked, even people who today would be considered extremist. A popular quote by politicians was "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
During this golden age of free speech, attitudes and even the laws of time were challenged. The result was a succession of new laws to end all kinds of discrimination, including racial, religious, gender, age and sexual orientation. A lot of people owe their current freedoms to the courage of people before them who used their right of free speech to make the country what it is today.
Today we have Political Correctness. You could say that we've moved on to a new golden age of equality and tolerance. You can't say anything that is racist, sexist, antisemitic, homophobic, etc. After all, the right of free speech, if absolute, means that some people will abuse it to say things that are offensive to other people. Should we have the right to offend? Should we be allowed to say things that may stir up hatred?
But if people have to guard their language and not say anything against against our current laws, how do you know what people are really thinking? How can you have an open conversation about immigration if you're afraid of being branded a racist? Or question whether it's good for a child to be brought up by two gay men without fear of being called homophobic?
We really must reaffirm the right of free speech in this country, even if it means weakening some of the laws about equality. Free speech has led us to shape the laws we have, which are some of the most advanced in the world - it should not be seen as a threat. I would rather our equality laws be put back a few years than for the whole country to be put back a few centuries to a time when you could lose your job if you did not pay lip service to the doctrines of the time. I, for one, am getting alarmed at the number of times I read about people being censured, disciplined, or even sacked from their jobs because they voiced an opinion that was regarded as inappropriate.
Free speech polices itself - if someone says something that is just plain wrong, then they can quickly be argued down by other people putting forward a better view. If someone says something that makes other people feel uncomfortable, they may still get a barrage of arguments against them, but if that person can persist with their view and make others listen, then that person can change attitudes for the better. Bad ideas die, but good ideas grow.
Free speech can even reduce the risk of violence or terrorism. Some people try to justify their violent acts by saying "it's the only language you understand" or "you don't listen to anything else". It only takes one person to feel that they are not being listened to, and as a result resort to violent methods to get their message across, for us to have a terrorist incident. It's no good condemning the violent act or showing solidarity with the victims after the damage is done. By being open to criticism, even if we fundamentally disagree with what is said, we show that we understand the peaceful language of words and not just the language of violence.
As a country, we can be proud of our tolerance of minorities. But let's not pretend that we know it all, or that are laws on equality are perfect, by suppressing people's right to raise questions or challenge us.