This column is written by the Otago University Debating Society, which meets for social debating every Tuesday at 6pm in the Commerce Building.
Affirmative, by Old Major
It’s easy to listen to your racist uncle and think ‘’this can’t be what our forefathers meant when they declared the right to free speech!’’ After casting off the yolk of tyrannical rulers and ushering in an age of freedom and enlightenment the end product can’t possibly be Uncle Mervin holding court at Christmas dinner about how some of his best friends are Muslim but really deep down they’re all terrorists. But it is. And that’s a good thing. Why is that?
It’s easiest to illustrate the importance of the freedom of speech by looking at the flipside. In saying we have freedom of speech we acknowledge that everyone’s opinion is of equal worth. By saying that some ideas are offensive and some aren’t, we can only make an arbitrary distinction between the two. It’s the same as a dictator announcing that some ideas are good and some are bad. Nothing makes those ideas good or bad objectively so we can’t be outraged at the actions of a dictator and then at the same time say that some things shouldn’t be said because they might lead to offence. Because people get offended for a whole bunch of reasons and that doesn’t mean that what offends them is necessarily a bad thing. I guess what I’m saying is that we need to make a distinction between what offends people and what are actually bad ideas.
But then why would I say that causing offence is a good thing? Because, to put it simply, it’s better that we discuss offensive things than pretend they don’t exist. The way that freedom of speech works at the moment is that there is a free market of ideas that anyone can contribute to. It can be seen in miniature in any social media network. Anyone can add their ten cents worth but only things that are interesting or funny or insightful are able to become popular, but at the same time posts that are offensive are ignored or quickly shut down. So it’s the fact that some ideas do cause offence that means that when we discuss those ideas people react to them and shut them down. You have the right to cause offence just as you have the right to freedom of speech, but if you cause offence then people’s reaction will be ‘that’s a fucking terrible idea’.
At the end of the day I have the right to offend a racist. That also means a racist has the right to offend me because we don’t apportion rights based on viewpoint. The fact that some people are dicks doesn’t mean we should censor discussion.
Negative, by Squealer the Pig
Why do we have a right to freedom of speech? We as a society respect that we should be allowed to speak our mind. No matter your political opinion, if you want to get anything done in this country, you need to get people on side. Now, if people disagree with you, you’re just not going to get much done unless you’ve got the opportunity to talk them around. And that’s precisely what the freedom of speech guarantee’s you, or any other freedom we have set down in law for that matter; an opportunity.
Shockingly however, you don’t have a right to being a dick.
So why don’t you necessarily have the right to cause offence? Surely you should be able to change minds however you choose? No, and here’s why: free speech means you are free from the government preventing you changing minds, it does not allow you to change minds however you want.
In the immortal words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, you do not have the right to shout “fire!” In a crowded theatre when there is none. Why? What if you did it to protest fire safety standards? Because you have chosen to exercise your right to speak in a way that has caused harm, when an alternative existed. You are allowed to say as much as you want, but when you say something that causes offence, when there was another way, then you have no “right”.
But let’s get to a more practical point; if you can’t convince people without being a bastard, then you don’t have a very strong argument to begin with. Equally, there is no person on this earth who is so timid that they are caused harm from disagreeing with them, only in the way you disagree with them. No right needs to exist to causing offence as it isn’t necessary to protect your opportunity to change society.
Now don’t take what I’m saying as a reason to censor yourself because you fear that you might cause offence. We have laws around when a discussion crosses the line, see the recent Harmful Digital Communications Act, for example, but your right to freedom of speech is still a right; genuine attempts at discussing issues aren’t going to land you in trouble.