Listening to last night’s, Question Time on BBC, I was interested to hear the discussion about free speech and the invitation the Oxford Union recently made to two speakers to discuss racial hatred and the holocaust. The panel were asked to consider whether the invitation was a triumph for free speech or an irresponsible act of provocation.
Paul Myners made an interesting point, quoting Voltaire, stating that although he may not agree with their views, he defended their right to say it. It is difficult to disagree with this view but the issues around free speech are becoming increasingly more complex. I don’t envy law makers and enforcers the task of clarifying the boundaries between what is fair, what is disagreeable and what is illegal.
When politicians are debating the law, they consider
- The right to free speech,
- The right to be protected from discrimination,
- Inciting hatred and
- Expressing extremist views
If people have the right to state their views even if I disagree them then do I not also have the right not to listen to them?
Really understanding what people are saying can be difficult, time consuming and sometimes exhausting especially when people have a brain injury, speech or communication difficulty, learning disability, or a mental health disorder, etc. It seems to me that there are many disadvantaged, excluded and impoverished people who currently have no voice but whose views I would rather hear.
