Freedom of Speech

I was half asleep last night when Fi mumbled something about freedom of speech. She was reading an article in the New Statesman about Labour's plans to introduce a new offence of incitement to religious hatred.

We got into a discussion about how to define the boundaries of Freedom of Speech. Or whether or not any curtailment of it by boundaries is even appropriate. No matter who you'll talk to, you'll hear the same hesitations about this topic.

I don't pretend to know much of the legal aspects of Freedom of Speech. I can merely talk about my own inner conflict with this topic. I think most of us will instinctively want to make others with different opinions (of the extreme kind: religious zealots, homophobes, fascists,...) shut up. Because that gives us a feeling that the problem is dealt with. If it can't be talked about... it can't spread... right? The fact is though, that taking away someone's right to speak out about their opinions, doesn't make the opinion go away. And who's to say it should?

It's a conflict of the two big forces of freedom. Allowing anyone to speak their mind. And protecting everyone's rights to do so. Even if people that attempt to breach the latter, make use of the first to do so.

In the end, I feel Freedom of Speech should be preserved in it's purest and most unbound form possible. I hope Labours experiment fails, and that with it will come the realisation that the incitement of hate, in itself, is not what needs to be solved. And that it's perhaps the issues that feed the urge for this incitement that ought to be tackled.