Freedom of Speech
This is the debate that preceded Christopher Hitchens' speech at Hart House, University of Toronto. The resolution: Be it resolved that freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate.
This debate took place November 15th, 2006. You can see the debate here in quicktime. The final speaker really does a solid job. Very eloquent and professional. Came across this at onegoodmove.org, one of my links of interest.
Regarding the last speaker's point where he states that the debates end when people use the words "I hate" because those words and rationale are mutually exclusive... I find that a little specious. Case in point:
- I hate bigotry because it claims that one set of people are superior to another set of people.
- I hate child predators because they prey on the weak and indefensible.
- I hate George W. Bush's policies because they are uninformed and detrimental to global society.
Then another thought occurred to me. We already have set conditions to freedoms. Child Pornography is illegal. Okay stop! Don't get your knickers in a twist. I'm glad it is illegal. In my opinion it should be illegal. Now, due to the very sensitive nature of this can of worms I just opened I will tread lightly (almost another form of censorship).
Do not for one second think I am, in any way whatsoever, condoning child pornography. I am not! I abhor the very notion! But the fact it cannot be portrayed could be considered a form of censorship, could it not? Now I'm sure most, if not all of us, might agree that this is an acceptable level of censorship and it might very well be, however, once again, could this be a slippery slope to more "acceptable censorship"?
I hesitate to click the "publish" button. Okay here we go. I nervously await the barrage that is to come.
4 comments:
While as Canadians we are entitled to some fundamental freedoms including freedom of speech, these are exactly that - fundamental. That is, they are basic and foundational, which I interpret as non-absolute with the examples you cited in your original post.
I don't think anyone truly expects these freedoms to be absolute, do they?
According to the freesearch British English dictionary, freedom is defined as:
"the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited"
Source: http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/freedom
You do make a valid point Nhi. After all one is free to exercise their freedoms provided they do not encroach on another's freedom. This is what sexual harassment laws are based on.
I suppose that's the difference between the lab and the real world.
I just fear that every time we add a stipulation to a freedom, even with the best of intentions, it becomes easier to add another. Precedent can be a very sharp double edged sword.
http://brandon-mcfarlane.blogspot.com/2007/03/martel-banned-from-cbc.html
Thanks for the tip CK.
Post a Comment