The Reason Why Free Speech Should Be Unrestricted

What's the difference between a smart Scottish man and a unicorn? Nothing, they're both fictional characters. Ha ha ha...That got your attention, didn’t it? Did you like the joke I just told? Funny wasn’t it? Well, I certainly think so. If you took offence to what I just said, do you think I should be punished? Likewise, if you found it funny, do you think a punishment is justified? In either case, why? Is it because I hurt your feelings? Unfortunately for you, what I just said is protected by my right to free speech – well, at least it should be...

Freedom of speech, by definition, is the principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. In almost every world country, this is more than just a principle – it’s a human right. For example, if I wanted to voice my opinion on someone like Donald Trump, I could do so without having to worry about being punished. So then why is it that ‘hate speech’ exists? The definition of hate speech varies wildly depending on which source you use, however, to sum it up; hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic/national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many constitutions recognise this and add an exception to the free speech law already in place. But doesn’t this just negate the fundamental idea of freedom of speech?. This isn’t a rhetorical question – the answer is yes.

The entire notion of hate speech is fundamentally flawed. The idea that all but one category of speech can be protected is simply absurd. Freedom of speech is the legal right for an individual or community to express any idea, opinion, argument or point of view they may have. It protects all types of speech that fall under this category. Hate speech, on the other hand, is speech that attacks, threatens or insults a person or group based on who they are. It condemns speech that falls under this category. One major problem with this is that hate speech contradicts the idea of free speech. One encompasses the other and you cannot just say that “all speech is acceptable, expect this type of speech because it offends people”. Do you see the contradiction here? A simple yet effective example of showing this can be found in what I’m calling ‘the junk food example’. Let’s say that I tell you that “You can eat any food you like. Just not junk food because it’s unhealthy”. It doesn’t make sense, does it? I’ve just told you that any type of food is acceptable to be eaten, yet I’ve also told you that you cannot eat junk food specifically. It undermines the core idea of all food being available by suggesting that you cannot have this specific category of food because it’s bad. When you think about it for more than 5 seconds you can instantly find the faults in the reasoning.

That being said, what exactly is hate speech? Well, we know the broad definition, but what actually constitutes as hate speech? It’s not as simple as you might think. Another major issue with hate speech is that it is all subjective – meaning that it differs from person to person. What offends one person will probably not offend another, meaning, logically, it can’t be categorised. Hate speech could be generally classified as “speech that is offensive, hateful or unpopular”. This is flawed because: offence is based on personal sentiment, hatred is an emotion that varies wildly amongst people, and whether something is unpopular is entirely dependant on public opinion – not one single aspect of this is objective. Here’s an effective way of demonstrating this to you. Let’s say you’re an American citizen in the mid-1800’s. Slavery is rife however you believe strongly in the emancipation of the slaves and decide to voice your opinion. To many, this would be considered hate speech and an insult to the white population. Your opinion, at the time, would have been considered offensive, hateful and unpopular towards and within this group. Nowadays, of course, we condemn the transatlantic slave trade, and any opinion in support of it is deemed unpopular by society and instantly attacked because it is offensive and hateful towards black people. Causing offence is not a crime. Causing offence cannot be a crime because whether something is offensive is subjective. Just because you don’t approve of something someone says does not mean that they should be punished based solely on that. If someone tells a joke and you find it funny, does that mean it can be objectively classed as funny or even as a joke at all? No. The answer is no. In the same way that comedy cannot truly be classified, neither can hate speech. This quote from ‘Index on Censorship’ CEO Jodie Ginsberg says it well; “Defending everyone’s right to free speech must include defending the rights of those who say things we find shocking or offensive. The right to free expression must include the right to offend, otherwise the freedom is meaningless.”

Now that I’ve shown you how structurally broken the argument of hate speech is, I’m going to give a real-life example of how the subjective nature of hate speech caused a man to be arrested and sentenced over a joke he made. If you have been keeping up-to-date with online media recently, you have probably heard mention of ‘The Nazi Pug Man’. Markus Meechan, better known as ‘Count Dankula’ is a Scottish YouTuber who has recently gained lots of media coverage over a Holocaust joke he made. In April 2016, he uploaded a video which showcases him teaching his girlfriend’s pug dog to raise it’s paw in a Nazi salute when he says “Sieg Heil” and react to the phrase “Gas the Jews” among other things. According to Meechan, his girlfriend would not stop talking about how cute her pug (named Buddha) was and claims the motive behind the video was to prank her by turning Buddha into the least cute thing he could think of – a Nazi. He was subsequently arrested and, in March 2018, was convicted of breaching the Communications Act of 2003 before being sentenced to pay a fine of £800. After this story broke online news, many comedians and celebrities such as Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry defended Dankula’s actions. Hearing this story, you probably believe the video to be in poor taste, much like many others at the time who took offence and reported the video to the police. If so, you likely also believe that his punishment is justified. But, remember what I previously told you about this sort of thing; you cannot justify the punishment based on personal sentiment. During Meechan’s lengthy trial, the court realised this issue and the only way for them to secure a conviction was to willingly ignore the context of the video and paint him as a bigoted neo-Nazi. The intent of the video (crude humour to produce laughter) was also disregarded. This is simply not on and is a testament to this country’s truly embarrassing legal system. Meechan is currently fighting a legal battle to appeal his conviction and change the law to prevent this sort of thing from happening to anyone else – as he puts it “Two years of my life put on hold, losing several jobs, remaining unemployable, being absolutely smeared by mainstream media and tens of thousands in costs to the taxpayer – all to fine me 800 f**king pounds”.

Dankula’s case was one which showcased someone expressing their viewpoint on a particular historical event – regardless of your opinion on the video, this is a fact. But what about cases which are actually against the law? So we’ve already established that the law protects all speech that expresses an idea, opinion, viewpoint or argument. However, the law does not protect any other type of speech that does not fit any of these categories, including, but not limited to; fraud, copyright infringement, revealing classified information, threats of/inciting violence, and false alarms. False alarms are a pretty standard example of this but illustrate the point well. A common example is shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre when, in fact, there is no fire at all. This is not expressing any sort of idea, opinion or argument and is seemingly only being done to be a nuisance. Fraud is illegal deception intended to result in some sort of gain, copyright infringement is essentially just piracy and unauthorised disclosure of information is exactly that – none of these things fall under free speech. The important thing to remember is, that while these things may have a motive behind them – perhaps the offender simply wanted to promote a message or protest something – they still don’t count as free speech. The intent may be to make a point, however, the delivery of said point is in a manner that is objectively wrong, and this is the final element to understanding free speech.

In conclusion, free speech should be unrestricted because, quite frankly, it shouldn’t be. Hate speech limits expression and should not even exist if you ask me. The definition is too broad, the right to free speech legally protects it and the entire concept of free speech logically requires it. the standards are subjective, the reasoning is circular and above all else, it can apply to anyone with a political opinion. It’s funny that in a world increasingly dominated by the belief that more people should voice their opinions, we still choose to censor opinions that we don’t like. It’s already been shown that such a flawed, fallacious and nonsensical tool can be used against something as trivial as telling a joke. And if the very concept of such a tool doesn’t scare you, then I don’t know what will. As Andy Levy once said; “Criminalizing offensive speech is a far greater and essential danger to freedom than terrorism is. Anybody who wants to criminalize speech that they find offensive differs from the terrorists only in degree, not in kind.”