I like to think that all of my opinions and beliefs are fairly consistent. I tend to define myself by labels like "humanist", "skeptic", "republican" (in the Monarchy sense of the word), "liberal", "pragmatic socialist" and so on - and in addition to this would say that I support a liberal approach to freedom of speech. I highlight the latter because whilst it seems compatible with my advocacy of other positions - where these opinions interact causes some interesting dilemmas. Over the past few months there have been a number of interesting cases where freedom of speech has run up against "people stating controversial opinions".
And the question this leads me to is: "Where is the freedom of speech battlefield?".
As Nick Cohen describes in his excellent You Can't Read This Book, even the staunchest defenders of freedom of speech would accept some limitations - the famous cliche being shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. But where exactly is this limit? To explain, some examples.
As I type this on Twitter an argument is raging about a "Radical Feminist" conference - RadFem 2012 - that has allegedly banned trans women from attending. As a result, this has upset many other feminists and the like - who having done a quick search seem to be tweeting the venue they have booked, Conway Hall, asking them to now allow the conference to take place in their hall.
This is an especially interesting dilemma - especially for Conway Hall. Leaving aside equality laws and the like - of which I've no idea if there's any laws that would prevent such a thing - what would be the correct thing to do if it were a purely moral issue? Conway Hall is an amazing building, and has a fascinating history - my understanding is that traditionally they take a very absolutist approach to freedom of speech. Despite being the, er, spiritual, home to much of Britain's secular and non-religious history and other radical thought in the past they've hosted meetings by dodgy Islamists. (Incidentally, that incident provides an interesting precedent - they didn't let it take place once it was discovered that the meeting wanted to separate men and women.)
So the dilemma for Conway Hall is should they:
a) Let these Radical Feminists who allegedly don't like trans women exercise their freedom to speak their wrong opinions? Or
b) Not allow the meeting to take place?
Is there such thing as a right to book a hall? Should the owners of the hall be able to police what is said in there?
A few weeks ago there was an enormous fuss for about an hour and a half on Twitter when it emerged that an awful Christian group were planning to run a response to the Stonewall "Some people are gay, get over it" bus adverts saying "Not gay! Post gay, ex-gay and proud! Get over it". Obviously most people thought this pretty horrific and within a couple of hours Boris Johnson had used a mayoral decree to ban the adverts from the side of buses. There's also a parallel here with the Atheist Bus Campaign from a few years ago - which had to modify its message to get past advertising rules.
Now though the anti-gay adverts are pretty horrible - the idea of banning them makes me a bit uncomfortable. But then I'm not a young gay person facing all of the challenges that being in that sort of position might entail (bigoted parents, my church telling me I'm going to hell, etc etc).
So the dilemma for TfL or whoever is in charge of bus adverts is should they:
a) Allow the bigoted adverts to run on the buses, potentially upsetting, causing offense to thousands of people? Or
b) Ban the adverts from appearing?
Is there such thing as a right to say what you want on a bus advert operated by a publicly owned corporation? Should TfL or the ASA be able to define the terms in which bus adverts are allowed to speak?
One of the most dickish things I've seen recently is the actions of American-import Christian group "40 Days for Life", who decided that their all-loving God wants them to spend their time standing outside of abortion clinics, intimidating the women who go in there. There's even been allegations of them (or others protesting) FILMING people going into the clinic on Bedford Square, and also stories of plastic fetuses and handing out leaflets for "pregnancy advisory" places that say that abortions cause cancer. But these dicks (the majority of whom seem to be men), on the whole, have set up their picket on public property and are merely exercising their freedom of speech.
I've also been involved in some of the counter protests against this - but I'm not sure what the ultimate goal is of everyone there. Do we:
a) Want to disagree with them publicly and hope to win the battle of ideas, showing support for women who want to control their own bodies - hoping that 40 Days for Life will, er, see the light, and stop protesting? Or
b) Do we want to get 40 Days for Life pickets banned?
Do 40 Days For Life have a right to protest on public space outside an abortion clinic? Or should the land owner or the government be able to decide who has freedom of speech in certain locations?
Finally, think back to the end of last year when you might have seen the whole faff surrounding the Jesus & Mo cartoons and UCL (and later LSE) student unions. To cut a tediously long story short - the UCL atheist society posted a cartoon from the "Jesus and Mo" webcomic on its Facebook group, some Muslim students (not the Islamtic society, it is important to note) complained to the Student Union - and the SU then told the Atheist Soc to remove the image or face sanctions. LSE's atheist soc posted the image in solidary - and then they got grief from LSE student union for it, who went as far as to level accusations of 'islamophobia' at them and so on.
What's the correct opinion to have here?
a) The student groups should be able to post images that others may find offensive - its freedom of speech? Or:
b) The students should be censored the avoid causing offence?
Do the student groups have a right to freedom of speech on University-linked Facebook pages? Or should the University be able to decide on the limits on what can be said on pages linked to them?
The reason I've given all of these examples is because I'm having trouble distinguishing exactly where the free speech battleground is. Whilst we all might agree that a small hall may be justified in throwing out some people for their opinions - what if Facebook did? Both are private entities - it just so happened that Facebook is the platform on which we conduct increasingly large amounts of free speech. How did bus adverts become such a huge matter of principle? After all, they're cardboard signs on the side of buses that usually have pictures of people wearing clothes or films on them. Where do we draw the line between disagreeing with people's opinions and actually preventing them from expressing them in the first place?
I can't visualise the battleground - what is media? Should I, for instance, as editor of The Pod Delusion, publish contributions that are pro-life because after all, I am the 'owner' of a moderately large platform on which contributors exercise freedom of speech?
The Guardian and the Telegraph are both disinclined to publish content that conflicts with their ideological leanings and we generally accept that this is fine - but if Mark Zuckerberg decided that Facebook were conservative, and stopped liberals from posting there would be outrage.
Businesses, universities and private entities should surely be allowed to restrict what happens on their premises - but what happens when the university is the dominant player in the cultural life of a student, the place where the vast majority of their intellectual interactions take place? What about if all halls refused to host a meeting of radical feminists - would that be denying them a freedom of speech?
Where are the limits of the free speech battlefield?
I don't know the answer to this - maybe you can help me?
Follow me on Twitter:
@Psythor
Listen to
The Pod Delusion
