Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?

发布者 Hyperspacerebel

Context:
Freedom of speech is often considered to be one of the most basic tenets of democracy. As a fundamental right it is enshrined in documents such as the Bill of Rights in the United States, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (1st Amendment to the US constitution – 15 December 1791)

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. United Nations General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.

(1.) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information an ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2.) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (Article X, European Convention on Human Rights, Rome, 4.XI.1950)

Freedom of speech and censorship are often phrased as opposite sides of a continuum that balance personal freedom with societal duty. Famous as a battle-ground between Left and Right in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, issues of free speech are often championed by human rights organisations around the world seeking to support those fighting against repressive regimes (examples include Aung San Suu Kyi, Vaclav Havel, and Lech Walesa).

The Pentagon Papers (1971) in the United States were the collected criticisms of the United States strategy during the Vietnam War. Distributed widely to newspapers, they were published despite attempts by the government to surpress their publication. Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic & Copernican was prohibited by the Catholic Church until 1835 containing, as it did, the heretical doctrine that the earth rotated about the sun. Other books of note which have been banned include Voltaire’s Candide (US 1930), Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man (UK 1792), Jack London’s Call of the Wild (Italy 1929), Anna Sewell’s Black Beauty (South Africa 1955), E for Ecstasy (Australia 1994), Ernst Zündel’s Did Six Million Really Die? (Canada 1980).

In 1925 in the state of Tennessee USA, John Scopes was convicted for teaching Darwin’s Origin of Species. John Locke's philosophical Essay Concerning Human Understanding was expressly forbidden to be taught at Oxford University in 1701. The issue is one of much contemporary interest in the developed world, where new technologies have opened up unprecedented access to materials which government’s could previously keep censored in a relatively efficient way – pornography, bomb manufacturing instructions etc. have become available on the world-wide web. In general, however, the issue tends to fall into categories of book censorship, speech censorship, video censorship, newspaper censorship, and political expression of one description or another.

Pros: (for government censorship)

Free speech is an inherently ambiguous concept that requires definition and interpretation; Government is the obvious place for such clarifications to be made.
Irrespective of its US provenance, we recognise that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (Schenck v. United States, 3 March, 1919). Thus shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong. We accept this limit on free speech, therefore the principle is conceded.
Speech acts lead to physical acts. Thus pornography, hate speech and political polemic are causally linked to rape, hate crimes, and insurrection.
Government must protect its citizens from foreign enemies and internal enemies - thus freedom of speech can be acceptably curtailed during times of war in order to prevent propaganda and spying which might undermine the national interest.
Some intellectual views are antithetical to beliefs held by major religions. In order to protect the religious from these views, we should prevent people from saying these offensive things.
We need to protect minors (those under the age of majority) from exposure to obscene, offensive or potentially damaging materials.

Cons: (against government censorship)

Governments should be distrusted. (a) Many political theorists argue that checks and balances need to be put in place in order to prevent Governmental abuse. The right to freedom of speech is too important to leave in the hands of Government. (b) An independent judiciary, or politically-independent body for assessing such circumstances is the only place that can effectively guarantee.
"After all, the practical reason why when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" - CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, H D Thoreau. Tyranny of the majority is as good a reason as any to prevent Government from being involved in censorship - the majority of the population may be anti-homosexuality, or anti-immigrant, or indeed pro-genetically modified foods. In a healthy democracy it is vital that smaller groups be heard, and there is no way to guarantee these voices if the Government can restrict free speech.
Society is self-regulating. (a) The link between speech acts and physical acts is a false one - people who commit hate crimes are likely to have read hate speech, people who commit sex crimes are likely to have watched pornography but not necessarily the other way around. Viewers of pornography and readers of hate speech are therefore not incited to commit anything they otherwise would not do. (b) Exposing pornography, hate speech and political polemic (extreme nationalism etc.) to society increase the likelihood that it will be discredited and defeated, rather than strengthened through persecution. This is Milton’s argument from "Areopagitica" (1644) - truth will combat error.
The government may well wish to surpress publication of information that would be prejudicial to its success in the next elections or its war campaign, but it’s in the public interest to know about their dirty dealings or illegal activities.
Although some views that may be expressed might be contrary to religious teaching, we must defend the rights of the non-religious within any society too.
Arguments that invoke censorship of materials for minors are just that - arguments for the censorship of materials for minors. They do not concede the general principal that censorship is good because until the age of majority the state acts in loco parentis and must act as a conservative parent at that.

So...
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?

Taken from http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=100

发布者 Skyfire

I would speak to the effect that the Bill of Rights is simply a documentation of the rights we inherit as living humans, with respect to Con #1-b.

Will consider this in a bit.

发布者 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 Hyperspacerebel

We don't have a freedom of information as a right (in America). Certain laws have been passed (eg Freedom of Information Act) to keep the Government accountable; but normally the American concept of freedom of speech does not include this.

发布者 465729

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 MyTie

Well, the US federal government can make treaties, but they need to be ratified by the representative from the states (congress). Entering into treaty making organizations is a grey area, like so many other areas.

发布者 MyTie

I would speak to the effect that the Bill of Rights is simply a documentation of the rights we inherit as living humans, with respect to Con #1-b.

Will consider this in a bit.

A nuclear weapon is simply a bunch of metal, rubber, wiring, and other chemicals. Not much there to really talk about.

发布者 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 MyTie

发布者 Skyfire

No... that's not what I was getting at. I was making a metaphor about how the bill of rights, although it is just a peice of paper, is really a very powerful item. It was a response to Skyfire's post, not the OP.

It is a powerful little piece of paper; this I agree on. However, the question is in the interpretation of its power.

And rereading what I responded with, my first response makes no sense.

发布者 Hyperspacerebel

In reference to things like pornography and hate speech. People, as always, have free will. They can avoid this material if they want to. If they don't then the government should ask themselves why, rather than simply blocking the information.

I'm not going to take sides in this debate (I have some very opinionated views on the matter nonetheless). Instead I'll play the devil's advocate for whatever catches my eye.

If pornography were allowed on billboards, it's kind of hard to avoid it. Don't I have a right to raise my children in a moral environment?

发布者 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 MyTie

What appears in general largescale media is generally what society agrees upon as a majority.
For example if porn were to appear on a billboard the following would probably occur:
People would see the ad.
People would complain.
The government would act to remove the ad on "moral grounds".
Notice that it is not the government that wants these ads removed but the people/civil majority/whatever you want to call them.Sometimes, it is the other way around. The government mandates teaching preschoolers about masterbation and homosexuality. Parents complain. The 9th circuit court of appeals slaps the parents.

In some situations, you're right. Others, no.

发布者 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 MyTie

Trace that example back a few steps beyond what you've just said. Why did they mandate it? Because as some point there were petitions put forward by groups asking that this was done. Just because we don't agree with it, doesn't mean it appears to the government like this is something their people don't want. Even if groups of parents complain.

There will always be SOME advocacy group out to promote ANYTHING. Look at NAMBLA. This doesn't mean the government never acts without being prompted.

发布者 Hyperspacerebel

Assuming you mean something like porn ads appearing on billboards rather than just random naked people advertising cars for example?

What appears in general largescale media is generally what society agrees upon as a majority.
For example if porn were to appear on a billboard the following would probably occur:
People would see the ad.
People would complain.
The government would act to remove the ad on "moral grounds".
Notice that it is not the government that wants these ads removed but the people/civil majority/whatever you want to call them.

The ad company would then be free to place the ad somewhere else however. e.g. newspapers, internet, tv, radio. The ad only being removed once complaints come in.
At no point is the companies right to express themselves blocked. Their method of doing so however is.

Just wondering do you guys have a "watershed" feature on your tv and radio in the US? I'm assuming you do but I could be wrong.

Concerning watersheds:
The term "watershed" is not used in this context in the United States. In the US, the "safe harbor" for "indecent" programming begins at 10:00 p.m. and ends at 6:00 a.m. the next morning (all time zones). However, content that is considered "obscene" (including explicit human sexual intercourse) is never allowed by the FCC rules for broadcast stations. Those content rules only apply to channels broadcast terrestrially and not those only available on cable.

Secondly, I would consider blocking methods of communication as an abridgment of freedom of speech.

发布者 165617

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 Hyperspacerebel

Given that person A has the right to free speech and person B has the right to a life free from harm, which of the two rights preceeds the other if person B considers what person A has to say to be harmful?
In my opinion, you can disagree, person B's rights should take presidence due to the fact that if person B is harmed, that harm cannot be undone. However person A's complete freedom of speech can be reinstated at any time.

I think you'll have a hard time proving naked women cause harm.

You're presenting your model as very 'free,' but in fact that's just the sort of set-up that grows into a beast. People will start complaining that everyone should be required to wear masks outside because the spread of disease is harmful to them, and so on.

发布者 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?

发表回复