How Free is Free Enough? #221

Ronald Dworkin on free speech and censorship

Dear friends of Daily Philosophy,

Last week I promised you an article on Salman Rushdie, the fatwa (for those who were born late and missed the original event) and the dispute around free speech. As I researched the topic, it kept growing and growing, and this is the reason why this article comes three days late. Sorry about that and let’s jump in!

Your opinions

On Wednesday, I asked for your opinions on the original Salman Rushdie case. We got contributions from both sides.

Livio Rossetti made a difference between fruitful provocations and provocations that are in bad taste:

On the other hand, there are both sterile and fruitful provocations, creative as well as of bad taste. So, I conclude: was Ruschdie's ridicule thrown on some aspects of the Muslim society marked by laevitas and creativity, or by bad taste? The crucial point is this, I presume.

John Shand, on the other hand, thought that we should never restrict free speech, even if it’s Hitler’s speech or someone’s who is threatening others:

I don’t believe there should be any limits on free speech. One should have Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Martin Gilbert’s The Holocaust, sitting next to one another on one’s book shelves. ... Harm gets done not my allowing free speech but by restricting it. In addition there is a Right to say what you think as part of the dignity and value that accrues to persons. That does not mean that that it always right to say what you think, but the Right to do so should be maintained. ... But what, you may say, of the man (to use an example from J. S. Mill) who gathers a crowd outside a person’s house and shouts ‘Burn it to the ground!’. Here the problem is not free speech – for there is nothing inherently wrong with the statement ‘Burn it to the ground’ – but rather the perpetration of a criminal act directly traceable to the act of the shouter, no different than if he had handed out knives to the crowd. Moreover, each member of the crowd is responsible for their own actions, how they respond to the cry.

Jackie Rose Catterwell suggested separating truthful statements from lies, and, instead of restricting freedom of speech, to more clearly and publicly correct false statements:

Going back to the original question, I think that writers have the right to write whatever they like in their books but it is the duty of critics to challenge them and call them out if they are lying ... Unfortunately, people peddling lies believe they are true and too few people challenge them. I welcomed the recent court case against the media commentator who thought the massacre at Sandy Hook never took place. He, at least, seemed to change his mind after the judge explained to him the truth between opinion and truth.

Find the rest of the debate here:

Your Take: What Do You Think of the Salman Rushdie Case?

It turns out that the debate on the limits of free speech is really fascinating. When I began researching it, I thought that I knew pretty well what my position was (something close to John Shand’s position above). Now, I’m not so sure.