THB in the absolute freedom of speech.
This is in response to a request by Zacarias Joseph (ILS) for a case on the motion. Having finally gotten the time to put it down, here it is...
THB in the absolute freedom of
speech [Gov]:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to death your right to say it."
~Voltaire~
-In status quo different
societies have different philosophies regarding the freedom of speech. However,
there are primarily three broad approaches which are adopted. The first is to
allow absolute free speech, whereby an individual may say whatsoever he or she
deems fit and stand immune from prosecution or persecution as a result of it.
The second approach as seen in India is to allow free speech, but with
“reasonable” limitations. The yardsticks to define what is reasonable are
various and varied and encompass speech which may instigate people to cause others
harm and slander etc. The third way to go about it is to dismiss the notion of
right to free speech thereby censuring, moulding and encouraging the
expressions of individuals and the society so as to prevent criticism of the
state and promote ideas that are constructive in the eyes of the big brother
state.
-Absolute freedom of speech is
not only essential for individual good but is also critical for societal
evolution.
-Before we move on to talking about
the merits of free speech, we must first understand certain matters that are
intrinsic to any further discussion.
Firstly, truth and facts achieve
their status by virtue of contesting disputes on their veracity and their standing when faced with certain tests. Anything that is asserted as truth or fact without being opened up
to contest inherently becomes dogmatic in nature.

-We will tackle the issue of free
speech on two levels; the first will be to demonstrate why repressing speech in
general is a bad idea and on the second level we will talk about the extreme
cases and why even under those circumstances, speech must not be curbed or
censured.
-Individuals speak to express their opinions or to communicate with other individuals in the society.
Therefore, to a large extent the individual’s ability to communicate freely,
directly impacts the ability of the said person to actualize to his or her
self-determined purpose. As we will prove later in greater detail, being able
to communicate freely with one’s peer leads to greater individual growth and
thereby the overall evolution of the collective. What is right or wrong and
what is good or bad are questions that are highly subjective and therefore at
least in the domain of expressing oneself, these matters must be kept open to
deliberation. Pre-emptively curtailing the expression of certain viewpoints on
the grounds of their being wrong or counterproductive is in itself
self-defeating as it will inevitably lead to the monopolization of the
judgement on what falls under acceptable and unacceptable by a limited section
of society. Those riding the popular sentiment or swaying it will as a result
be able to dictate their interpretation on these matters while silencing the
rest.
Societies exist to serve the
individuals that constitute it and they thrive by virtue of the growth of those
same individuals in all spheres. Therefore, individuals speech must not be
subjected to the collective’s approval. There is a strong cyclical link between
the curbing of speech and the overall degeneration of society which goes to
prove the above.
Truth can only be established by
discourse and it only retains its status till it is disproven. History is
evidence to how things that are deemed eternal truths by one generation might
have been deemed absurd or blasphemous by another. Societal acceptance and
tolerance towards a particular view point is subject to its context and
relative situational sensibilities. Subjecting free speech to these factors
cripples the emergence of voices that oppose what is deemed “right”. This
creates an unhealthy atmosphere whereby the masses lend inertia to incumbent
truths, ideas and opinions and resist any change to what is established thereby
dooming themselves to no further evolution. Anything that manages to dethrone
its predecessor and establish itself with the mob sentimentalities then takes
on the same role. Such a state is less preferable to one where society is
continually evolving through self-critique and discourse.
Such discourse enhances the
society’s understanding of what they root for as well. Swallowing down what is
to be held sacred and what not leads to the dogmatization and intellectual
inebriation of the society. Having to defend one’s belief cuts both ways
insomuch as it forces both the individual and collective to justify to each
other as well as oneself the reasons for supporting one matter over another
thereby fuelling intellectual growth and enlightenment. It also breeds greater
tolerance for intolerance is the fiefdom of the daft.

An expression of intolerance
should not be responded to with a counter reaction of intolerance but rather
with an expression of tolerance by virtue of having allowed the intolerant to
speak and then be responded to with rational discourse. The nature of true
tolerance encompasses tolerating the intolerant. Furthermore this gives a
greater opportunity for the intolerant to embrace tolerance.
-Let us now talk about the matter
of outright lies and slander.
A society in which one is free to
lie and slander, every statement made in a manner of representing fact will
bear a high burden of proof. This will be the inevitable result of the conditioning
which will result from an environment where the collective understands that
everyone is free to say whatever they wish to and that the only litmus of truth
is the evidence and arguments presented to back it. Blatant assertions will
lose their sensational value and thereby the benefits of making them redundant.
This construct will be similar to that of the scientific community where a mere
assertion holds no value whatsoever and only those statements or findings that
are backed by evidence or compelling logical arguments will hold weight. Take for example the case of Arvind Kejriwal as a simplistic illustration. There was a strong societal reaction to his first few "expose's", however with his third and fourth expose' the masses began ignoring his statements due to the lack of substantiation behind his allegations.
Even then, it might be more
convenient to make an exception in this case and limit the boundaries of this
freedom to exclude defamation, slander and lying to the masses. However such an
approach is highly problematic as is compromises the underlying principle and
more importantly, the ability to interpret what deserves censorship under this
provision can lead to the same sort of slippery slope and abuse that any other
form of restriction is subject to. Take as example the ban on refuting the
occurrence of the holocaust in certain western liberal states.
-The state cannot curb certain
types of thought and it should not even try to even if possible. As long as a
thought exists in an individual’s mind, he or she will desire to express it. As
long as that desire exists, the only rational thing to do is to allow the
individual to express it so he or she may either share with the society the
merits of the thought or stand a chance to learn its demerits by virtue of the
reaction to his thought. Curbing the expression is equivalent to curbing an
individual from expressing one’s thoughts and the effects are potentially
devastating. The will to express oneself is one of the most deep rooted
burning desire that humans possess and it is that urge that drove us as a race
to develop the art of communicating right from the stage of primitive grunts
and hand gestures to a modern day state of linguistic and artistic plurality;
all means to one goal, to express, to communicate. For all those reasons, the
freedom of speech must be absolute.
~The Editor.
PS: Opp case to follow.
Comments
Why the difference in standards? Human society can be and should be conditioned to become tolerant towards views that don't agree with their's. In such a construct, individuals would not go ape shit when faced with what they feel is blasphemous (like what would happen in Iran if they found a young woman professing pre-marital sex). However, society cannot and should not be conditioned to tolerate physical harm in order to accommodate for another's expression.
^is your opp case. Sunstein is SEX.