Total Pageviews

Monday 28 July 2014

Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech

Supporters of political organisations like the freedom association and Ukip often claim that the UK's current hate speech and anti-defamation laws are simple attacks on free speech designed to curtail political expression and with a more Americanised approach the the situation the country would be far better off. The United States enjoys apparent freedom of speech under the US constitution yet despite these constitutional guarantees it has fallen sharply in the press freedom rankings tumbling from 20th to 46th position in just four years due to government pressure currently being placed on journalists and news agencies that are reporting on activities like NSA spying that put the government in a bad light. All this is happening as extremist groups like the Westbro Baptist church are allowed to spread their message of hate and and exclusion without legal consequence due to free speech protections.

It is this apparent freedom that the TFA and other organisations want to bring here in an argument that is often backed by the phrase "political correctness gone mad" but what does that actually mean? In the right-wing press political correctness if often attacked as an idiotic method of appeasing minority groups. I find that political correctness is simply an evolution of the English language, for example you would no call a co-worker, friend or stranger the n-word so why should you be able to use homophobic and sexist slurs in the workplace and in public? What these right-wingers fail to understand is that the right to free-speech does not extend to the right to belittle, offend or harass someone based on superficial points.



In this country we have real issues regarding freedom of speech. The United Kingdom itself has fallen sharply from 19th to 33rd in just four years as the governments attack on the Guardian, the security services harassment of David Miranda and the extent of how anti-terror legislation can be used against journalists and activists was revealed. These acts of state-repression should be fought against by free speech campaigns but starting a FoS campaign when all you want is the right to attack minorities is not only offensive and disingenuous but it also demeans the work of honest FoS campaigns that seek to protect journalists, activists and average citizens from legislation that in its current form can be used as a method of repression.

No comments:

Post a Comment