Help
Sign In
ecology
October 2009 
Freedom of Speech is overrated
Posted on Mar 11th, 2008
by 
Dolf
Dolf
In many constitutions, Freedom of Speech is listed as one of the first paragraphs. It protects our right to express ourselves, without the fear of retribution by the government, groups or individuals. In many countries, freedom of speech is non-existent, which is one of the most effective ways to suppress a people. It is also for that reason one of the most cherished constitutional rights for journalists and other media.
So why do I call freedom of speech overrated?
In the past years, in The Netherlands there have been many debates about the subject and how far it extends. This was mainly a subject in the ubiquitous Islam-debate, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali's self-proclaimed "right to offend", the killing of a filmmaker who made it his job to offend people, Danish cartoons and most recently, the (yet unreleased) movie of a Dutch member of parliament in which he is going to claim that the Koran is a fascist book. In the latter case, protests have arisen all over the world already, without anyone having seen the actual movie yet.
My point about freedom of speech is about Ecology. You can check out a previous blog entry (here) for my definition of it. In short, Ecology means that your actions should not hurt yourself, the other or the environment in a physical, emotional, rational or spiritual sense. In my opinion, freedom of speech needs to be measured by ecology. It is not a right we have that is infinite and all-transcending, but just one of our freedoms that is constrained by the freedom of others. Freedom of speech is an important right that, however, ends where ecology gets violated. Once that happens, it is time to rethink our acts and find an other way to set up a constructive way of communicating our opinions.
One note on current affairs, though: in the above examples, Freedom of Speech has been attempted to be blocked by extremist groups that felt offended and decided to take unecological actions against random representations of the groups they thought was doing wrong. In those cases, it is not ecology that restrains freedom of speech, but the lack of ecology. However, the creators and publishers of the Danish cartoons and the creator of the Dutch anti-Islam movie should have done their ecology-check before releasing their materials. Based on that, it may have been found wiser to find an other way to voice their opinions.
Access: Public
There is much that I find offensive in the world– horror movies for one— but that does not give me the right to say that someone else shouldn't see them. The people who were offended by Ayaan's movies did not have to watch them. i did indeed watch them and did not find them offensive. Rather I found them an honest account of how a woman was affected by her upbringing and I learned something about the world in which I live.
I do not think that speaking ones' own truth can be construed as a crime against nature. Other's have a right to speak their own truth as well. Ayann did not deliberately harm another. She spoke out against one's who were and had done physical harm to her and many other women in the name of ideology. Silencing a voice that wants to speak it's own truth is an act of violence.
Hi synonym for light. Thanks for your comment. I agree generally with what you write. One remark on the second part of your text, though.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali did indeed speak out against those who had done physical harm to her, but went too far in doing so when she started generalising about Islam. Not every muslim is part of the group that hurt her, so nto every muslim should be held accountable for those events. The way in which Ayaan communicated and her statement that she has the right to offend go beyond the boundary of Ecology, for she was then unnecessarily offending people. And it is there where “speaking one's truth” has its limits.
I do believe that whether one offends another is too subjective to be legislated or made law. I might unnecessarily offend someone just by saying I like black cats or by walking naked through my own house.
I have been working for police, fire and ambulance dispatch for 12 years now and I get calls on every subject. You would be amazed at what some people are offended by and want the police to go and put a stop to. You would be amazed at the reasons they state they had for punching other people in the mouth.
Yes, I actually have had people call, offended because their neighbor walks around his own home in the nude without first closing his curtains.
I say– if you don't want to be offended and no physical harm is being done or threatened to be done– leave it. look to something that gives you peace.
what ayaan did was not unnecessarily offend someone. what she and theo did were to make something called art. art is very subjetive. some think one piece beautiful, others think the same piece ugly, wrong, or just boring or inconsequential.
I do believe that I have a RIGHT to offend. because there are 6.5 billion (actually more now) people on the planet and if I found that just one of them was offended by me, say, going outside of my home with my head uncovered or walking on a beach without clothes on, then I would not be able to live my life without deliberately offending that person. so yes, we all have a right to offend. does that mean we should deliberately provoke another just as a means to hurting them? no. but I don't think that what ayaan and theo did was intended to harm anyone. I think what they did was intended to shed light on a cultural norm that is still, in many places, doing direct physical harm to women and girls and boys and men also. if my neighbor is beating his child or his wife, even if his personal philosophy or religion tells him that it is right to do so when they “misbehave”, I have not only a right, but a duty, to shed light on that situation and if my speaking against his behavior is offensive to him and I know that it is offensive to him and I choose to speak anyway then I am deliberately offending him. and it is indeed my right, nay it is my duty.
I believe that what ayaan did was good. and any who would be offended by the movie she made, have the right not to look at it.
I do not believe that all muslims are part of the group that hurt her. I do not believe all men beat their wives. but I will still speak against those that do. and if I make art that is offensive to them, they can choose to speak against it, but doing me violence for speaking an opinion other that their own is not ok. and anyone who does violence to another over a difference of opinion loses his moral high ground.
if I say, “a man hurt me” or “men often hurt women” I am generalising. but I am also speaking a truth. though it is also true that “women hurt men” though not all men hurt all women nor vice versa. If I say, “dogs bark” I am generalising and also speaking a truth though I am fairly certain that not every dog everywhere barks.
if Ayaan says that Islam oppresses women. She is speaking a truth. She is also generalising. though not all Islam oppresses all women.
I think you can ask for people to be careful with their words and you can ask them to be impeccable with the details and you can ask them to be fair in their generalisations– but you cannot call this law.
this is something that we learn as we grow. to be impeccable with our speech.
the right of free speech gives us the ability to learn and grow. with the right to speak freely comes some responsibility to speak ethicallly and fairly.
do you know how slander laws work? you can only be convicted of slander in this country if the jury believes that you spoke an UNtruth that was damaging to the victim. so– if Ayaan said that a certain person had harmed her or another, and that was an UNtruth then she would be liable for slander. I do not think she has wrongly accused a person of wrongdoing. She has accused a culture and a religious institution. These have every right to defend themselves and discuss and debate, but they do not have a right to do violence to her because of her opinion.