Freedom of Speech and People’s Feelings
It appears a couple are threatened with offending Hindu sensibilities for their wedding, according to this story from the Evening Standard (London). (HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars.) This is an Indian case, and due to the fame of one of the participants there is some indication India won’t pursue it.
Those who approve of laws against “hate speech” or various similar restrictions on freedom of speech should be warned, however, that no matter what your views, this could be you.
This is a serious danger to freedom, especially in cases of religion. When a government makes “offending” any class of religious people a legal offense, there is virtually no barrier before any speech whatsoever can be banned. What can I possibly say that will not blaspheme somebody’s religion. I do not believe Mohammed was a prophet. I’ve offended Muslims. That belief should be no surprise, however. I’m a Christian. I don’t think cartoons or art mocking Islam should be illegal, no matter how offensive Muslims find them. But note that at the same time I don’t think cartoons or art mocking Christianity, Christians, or major Christian figures should be illegal either. That’s freedom of speech. If you’re easy to offend, get used to being offended.
Of course many non-Christians will agree with me on that point, but I again let me extend that further. Hate speech laws that target conservative Christian criticism of other religions or homosexuality, for example, are also anti-freedom. I often really don’t like the categories of speech they forbid, but that’s not the point.
Let freedom of speech reign, and let’s all learn to be less offended by it.
You make a good point about hate crimes laws that are directly merely at speech. However, most such laws are not so directed. Usually, they involve increased penalties for violent crimes committed with animus against the victim based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. A clear distinction needs to be drawn here because many Christian conservative lobbying organizations confuse the categories. I’ve written recently about this on my site: http://tgdarkly.com/blog/?p=527
I agree with you completely, and I made precisely that point in my post Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, in which I pointed out that TVC had failed to draw the distinction. In that bill violent acts are singled out, and that is a very important distinction.
I was going to comment but ended up posting it on my blog instead.
hi nice site.
I once ran across an Isaac Asimov quote that basically went
I think he’s got a point. The way the ‘sensitivity’ bit is usually done is very one-sided, and lends itself to ‘rule by the thin-skinned’. The old Fidonet BBS network seemed to have the right idea; the basic rule in Fidonet was:
I think we need a similar pair on the ‘sensitivity’ front:
Having the first without the second is unbalanced, and seems to lead to what I can only describe as a ‘secular phariseeism’, with an overwhelming number of rules that have to be followed to avoid tripping over ‘offensiveness’ snares.
What I would see as really useful would be a counterpoint to ‘sensitivity classes’; ‘insensitivity classes’ that stress giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping on the merest possibility that something might possibly be able to be interpreted as ‘offensive’.
Oh, drat, I used a <b> where I should have used a <br>. Makes me with your comments had previews.
That should be
I notice nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to not be offended. I am confronted with material that I consider offensive hourly just watching TV or listenening to the radio. I could either wast my time protesting each one or I can just blow them off, and take note of what sponsors not to support. Most of those who are “offended” need to grow up. The old children’s rhyme about sticks and stones is true, and it is when you react emotionally that those who intentionally offend win.