Is Freedom of Speech an Absolute or a Relative Right?
I used to hear people say this popular justification, “I’ll say what I like. It is a free country.” This claim has fallen out of fashion, replaced in UK with “I’m entitled to state my own opinion” and in the US with “I’m only exercising my (Constitutional) right to free speech.
An interesting word -‘right’, don’t you think?
In the United States, people are fond of appealing to the Constitution. In Britain, they do not do this because there is no written constitution, no document or point of reference but ‘The Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament’ Law which tends to be proscriptive (don’t do x,y,z). So in Britain, one will never find a prescriptive law that reads ‘say whatever you like’. In UK, only a court of law can decide if someone has acted illegally in, for example, inciting racial hatred.
On the other hand, nobody claims such right or entitlement to free speech in Doha. One can think what he/she likes but some opinion, voiced in the wrong place, and could result in detention or deportation. Also, there is heavy censorship on internet usage and personal blogs can be blocked.
A friend of mine (an English) living in Doha is not bothered with the restriction on free speech. Why not? According to him, he is there to work, not to reform the country, and experiencing how different cultures organize themselves is one of the reasons for his traveling lifestyle.
What about the law?
People don’t realize that you are allowed to break the law. It’s illegal but that’s merely by definition. One is allowed to break the law but then the officers of the law are allowed, duty-bound in fact, to apprehend lawbreakers and turn them over to the courts. This partly explains why proscriptive law works. If the law says ‘don’t do x’ and you are seen doing it, it is a clear case of law-breaking. Prescriptive law is not so easy. If you are seen not doing something, your immediate defence is “I was just about to do it”.
UK’s position when it comes to free speech is that you are allowed to say anything in general unless, specifically, you are not. For example, one is not allowed to incite racial hatred, under the terms of the Race Relations Act.
It is more complicated in the US because of the Constitution. There, you are allowed to say anything in general unless, you are not, but then, you can appeal to your Constitutional rights. The water gets muddy here.
What are Rights?
I have read somewhere during my ‘bookworm days’ about a politician who people loved to hate. His name was Enoch Powell, one of the champions of the Conservative right wing. Though I did not care for his politics, and still don’t, I have a sneaking admiration for the man. Powell had a formidable intellect and was one of the best debaters in the House. I was impressed with what he had to say about constitutional rights. His take on the matter is that – if something is a right, then the State must defend it, by force if necessary. The right to shelter: the State is obliged to house the homeless (if they demand shelter). Or, the State is obliged to provide fresh drinking water. There are no problems with provisional rights like these. However, the right to act or the right to speak are less straightforward. Logically, if one has the right to free speech, even if one speaks offensively, the State must provide police protection to allow one to continue to offend. In extreme, the State must protect one even when one speaks against the State. Powell’s view was that the State should be extremely cautious in extending rights that could end up in conflict with the law. This appears now to be the case in the US and Philippines.
Free Speech and Political Correctness
Political correctness was not in fashion in Powell’s day, at least not by any such name. Legislation along the lines of ‘don’t be offensive’ was also very little. Recently, however, this is where the battle lines are drawn. Someone says or writes or expresses himself/herself that is offensive to a religious or cultural group, members of the group complain. The ‘artist’ or ‘the-one-who-just-wanted-to-express-himself’ bemoans political correctness and appeals to the right of free speech. The off-repeated cycle is not edifying.
Maybe, it would be better if there were less protective legislation but also no ‘right’ of speech either. That is, if the whole field of communication were removed from the legal domain (except inciting criminality). In the UK where there is no ‘right’ of free speech, people speak freely. It is simply unnecessary. Such deregulation would make individuals responsible for any reactions to their words, as they would no longer be able to hide behind a right.
I don’t expect this to be a popular remark but in some respects, I think that the US Constitution (where we patterned ours), which was a great force of progress for a very long time, is now becoming a ball and chain, as it is too firmly tied to a time and an intellectual landscape that have passed away.
In my ideal world, there should be free speech moderated by basic courtesy. Laws proscribing some speech pitted against rights to speak ‘freely’ seem to me to set up an unnecessary polarity. I think it would be better if the whole field were removed from law, except in cases where criminality is involved. Arab societies (like Qatar) are far more polite than we have become. Politics and religion may be discussed, but not without first agreeing that all parties want the discussion. And often, at a point of disagreement, someone will say, “Let us not talk about this”. It is not avoiding issues. Rather it is respecting differences and recognising the futility of conflict in a social setting.
Why can we not just treat speech like dancing? To my knowledge, no country in the world has the right to dance enshrined in its constitution. Yet when the spirit moves us we can dance. There’s no need for the ‘right’. Most of us have the good grace not to dance at a funeral and don’t need a law proscribing that practice either.
Most of us feel we are absolutely entitled to hold an opinion. No-one can take that away from us. Going public with the opinion is the grey area. The question really is, whether and to what extent the law should be involved. Salman Rushdie’s book ‘The Satanic Verses’ is a case in point. The UK Govt has protected him for years, at considerable public expense, from the consequences of his writing. But that was an individual decision to protect a British subject in danger. It wasn’t an obligation because of an enshrined ‘right’. I know it’s a subtle distinction, but it’s a real one. I am hoping that our government would protect someone exercising a ‘right’.
The idea of “freedom of speech” as a right is a conundrum even in societies where it is supposedly protected by law. The question of how far this right can be taken until it becomes a crime is totally subjective, hence almost impossible to solve. We have all seen, and some have experienced the results of being targeted by someone going too far with the spoken or written word, i.e. the Holocaust, Rushdi, Ruanda.
Free speech is a euphemism and does not truly exist. Even in the most free countries on earth, if you offend “the powers that be” there are consequences they may be real, like imprisonment or beatings or subtle harassment or blockading of your rights or even trade or virtual, by shunning or vilifying you. Who finally is the arbiter of what represents free speech? Your freedom or my freedom?
De facto freedoms are better not to be defined as rights.
