Freedom of Speech 101

[jimhines]

I’ve written about freedom of speech on several occasions, but apparently it’s time to do so again, as I’ve read that my tale about the Pig and the Bunny and the word “retarded” advocates censorship.

I don’t want to pick on the individual who raised this point, because he’s not alone. The reason I had the third wolf reply, “You can’t tell me what to say. I have freedom of speech!” is because this response is in fact rather common. (Often, but not always, coming hand-in-hand with a slam on “political correctness.”)

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. (It should be noted that I’m talking about this issue from a U.S. perspective. Laws and ideas about freedom of speech vary widely from one nation to another.)

So here’s the thing. You have the right to say that Jim C. Hines is a condescending asswipe. I support your right to say that, and I would oppose any legislation that tried to take away that right.

But if you say it to my face, I’ll ask you to stop. Or maybe I’ll walk away and talk to someone else. If you come onto my blog and post it as a comment, I might delete your comment and boot you off of my site. Or maybe I’ll just mock you.

None of those things in any way restrict or take away your freedom of speech.

If you read Yo Is This Racist, you’ll find a lot of questions about white folks wanting permission to use the word “nigger.” There are people who get really upset, not about racism, but about the fact that we as white people aren’t allowed to use that one word. To paraphrase Khan, it tasks us. It tasks us, and we shall have it!

Well guess what. As it turns out, we do have the right to use that word. Yay us!

And the rest of the world has the right to call us racist, ignorant shits if we choose to to use it.

Hey look at that, freedom of speech goes both ways. Who knew?

You have the right to use the word “retarded,” too. And I recognize that we often use words unthinkingly. But people also have the right to ask you not to use it.

What I don’t have is the legal means to force you to stop using that word. After hearing someone say, “This word is hurtful to me and to others,” you can choose to keep using it. And that’s as it should be.

I’ll lose respect for you if you make that choice. I may tell you what I think about you continuing to use that word. I might mock you for it. If you’re a business, I might stop giving you money. If you’re an author, I might stop reading your books.

That’s my choice.

This is from a blog post I wrote back in 2009. (Is it egotistical to quote yourself? Oh well…):

Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.

Freedom of speech is hard. It’s messy. Sometimes it’s ugly. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. Nor does freedom of speech obligate me to agree with your words, or to provide them with a platform.

Any questions?

—

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

Comments

[legionseagle]

I agree with the principles you're setting out, but it's worth noting that there are a number of other points which people who cite the First Amendment seem to be missing (on both sides of the argument, to be honest). .com=/= US. Therefore, depending on forum, someone using particular forms of language on-line may be committing all sorts of *legal* breaches in the countries where they are received. So the argument based on freedom of speech itself not only ignores the exceptions built into the First Amendment but the fact that the First Amendment isn't universal law. And people brought up under other legal systems have very different expectations about what can and can't be legally said (as well as morally).

[jimhines]

That's a great point. The U.S. tends to prioritize the idea of free speech over everything else, whereas a lot of other countries have more of a balance with free speech vs. hate speech, for example. And then there are countries where "free speech" just isn't part of the picture at all...

I should add a note to that effect.

[legionseagle]

Yes, it comes up a lot in on-line libel. Somewhat unenviably, the UK has the reputation of being the libel tourism capital of the world - it is, for example, perfectly possible for a New Zealand sportsman to sue an Indian businessman over an allegedly libellous allegation made on twitter which was viewed by a maximum of 95 people in the UK.

More to the point, with hate speech often people don't even realise that specific marginalised groups have rights in other countries based on a legacy of oppression in those countries so that cultural customs which are OK in one country may be create real problems in another.

[georgmi]

Another nuance that people frequently forget is that "right to speak" is not the same as "right to an audience".

[legionseagle]

In what may be a concrete example of the culture clash we discussed yesterday, this anti-abortion group from Texas spotted taking photos of women entering a London clinic probably think they're enjoying the First Amendment rights. But in fact they're gathering and processing "sensitive personal data" in a manner which contravenes a whole host of provisions of the UK Data Protection Act</a.

[catsittingstill]

And that "right to speak" is not "right to have people at least pretend to respect every silly damn thing you say."

[bookuniverse]

Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.

This. YES.

Rush Limbaugh has the right to call politically-outspoken women "whores", and ask "Who bought your condoms when you were in Junior High?"... and it's not "censorship", much less a "liberal Fatwa", if those of us outraged by his vulgarity use OUR freedom of speech to tell his advertisers we will boycott them if they continue to PAY for such hateful diatribes.

Orson Scott Card has the right to say hateful things about gay people... and I have the right, as a bookseller, to react to his hate-speech by pulling all his books off my shelves and refusing to buy anything else he writes until he apologizes. It is not "censorship" if I'd rather spend my business' money ordering copies of JIG DRAGONSLAYER instead of THE FIRST FORMIC WAR...