For quite some time now, here in the UK there is a growing debate about 'free speech' and right to freedom of expression. There are different takes on this issue. Drawing the line between hate speech and free speech is one. Between racism and tolerance on the other. Of late there is another tendency that is noticed - something not very common in the West, at least not so apparent - the blunt shutting down of voices that differ or express a different opinion than one's own.
I remember Fr T.D. John sharing his secret criteria to know who among the debaters is losing the argument: the one shouting louder!! And I have to agree that has always been the case: the one shouting higher and higher has run out of arguments and is therefore employing another tactic to win: shutting the other off, rather than proving his point.
I remember Fr T.D. John sharing his secret criteria to know who among the debaters is losing the argument: the one shouting louder!! And I have to agree that has always been the case: the one shouting higher and higher has run out of arguments and is therefore employing another tactic to win: shutting the other off, rather than proving his point.
Offensiveness or wrong-headedness hurt no one. The claim that they do is designed to shut down legitimate debate.
The proper antidote to speech that offends is other speech. Opinion anchored in reason can be countered by other opinion. Lies can be exposed by factual evidence. Truth emerges from debate and disagreement.
The only sort of speech that deserves to be banned, on campus or elsewhere, is that which peddles true prejudice. This means speech that attacks people on the basis of an irrational hatred which by definition is immune to reasoned argument.[From an article titled 'Where to draw the line on true free speech' by Melanie Phillips The Times January 2, 2018]
...
An opinion can be contested. Irrational hatred cannot. Drawing the line between the two is to balance on a high wire.
No comments:
Post a Comment