The issue of freedom speech has been debating for many decades from local to international level. Although it has been shown that the freedom of expression is the most important key, which constitutes a human right in most of the democratic countries, and the liberty of every human person can have to execute their expressions respected by this right, one of the limits can damage the tolerance of this right is the incitement to violence when a person’s liberty is being violated. As argued by Garton (2016), it is recognizable that speech differentiates how human beings a person is from an animal, thus the use of this power need to be considered its line to avoid inciting to any violence. This essay will show that true meaningful free speech has a major mission maintaining the peace in the modern world whilst incitement to violence sees a clash of civilization which can hold the society back, leading to the conclusion that it is refutable that dangerous speech or hate speech cannot be taken into account as free speech, therefore only free speech can draw the transition of human species and the world transform into a tolerant society.
Firstly, as mentioned above, free speech demonstrates how democratic a nation is, thus the mutual understandings can be prioritized. In political respect, this can be seen like listening carefully to a wrong view but you need to agree that view does exist. According to John Steward Mill (cited in Allan 2013, p. 9),
“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
In essence, divergent perspectives (including dislikes and likes) deliver the thoughts of human nature, then it is fair to one listens to the other. In terms of psychology, no one incites to violence at the first argument and the thing is to allow each person to persuade their audience to the righteous feeling and to accept their view, otherwise, if it is vice versa, they will have an opportunity to convert their stance into the truth. Subsequently, the value of free speech for people will be granted, and the chance for everyone to speak their minds is tremendous. In other words, free speech is a mutual right that the person who speaks can be listened to and the person who listens to can have the right of an audience.
Secondly, the incitement to violence results in a clash of civilization while the true meaning of free speech makes its historical achievements in terms of the dignity of the human person. This is an outspoken advocate with no inciting to violence. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 are the two typical examples. Caroline (2013) pointed out that the use of nonviolent protest by Martin Luther Kind and Rosa Parks by rallying and boycotting among the African American societies created opportunities for African-American peoples to achieve equal rights to the Americans, thus the government got to re-legislations and the protracted discrimination won to avoid war. It can be seen that this lesson teaches the promotion of peace of free speech, and a shred of worth evidence that civilization is a thing on earth, which every social group lives together and shares that only one voice – the voice of a human. As a result, enduring pain, suffering and even torture are counterproductive to free speech and impede the developing process of the world society. The contention can be dealt with when the negotiation of free expressions is allowed and the lesson of history has taught that.
However, it is worth discussing dangerous speech, which causes harmful effects on the understanding of freedom of speech. In the Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights calls for, “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence to be outlawed.” (Garton 2016) Viewing that statement analytically, what is observed in the society can be different? In a flat world, the multiculturalism is a sign of much modern society, people come from different cultural norms and encounter each other. What a person believes that is normal, and then it turns taboos to others in the same community. Others argue that these immutable characteristics attack the right of free expressions. However, respecting one’s cultural identity is practising the right of a listener to what is going wrong or right to the surroundings. If it is wrong, it cannot exist longer. If it is right, it is worth reflecting our stances. Moreover, to make a case, it unfairly depends on a full-power government acted as an absolute monarchy then gives their citizens a very little right to speak their thoughts. Thereafter, it is easy for people to get involved in “hate/dangerous speech” or incitement to violence, which may cause insults badly or extremist ideas. In this case, the nature of complex as human beings conflicts to one another is inevitable. Does that mean incitement to violence or violent protest should be encouraged? Yet those who are on the opposite side have convicted the controversy of free speech. By no means, the promotion of peace is the key to justice and keep promoting the freedom of expression is a key theme to avoid any dangerous speech.
In conclusion, the right to free speech is not only upgrading the human society of democracy and the justice of human dignity but also promoting peace to all societies worldwide. It has been demonstrated that the attack of dangerous speech to free speech, thus causing people’s awareness of understanding mutual perspectives rather than making insults on people. It has also been demonstrated that incitement to violence is just promoting a clash of civilization, even interfering human dignity and does not help to promote peace. While free speech has demonstrated to impact on the performance of one’s voice and the right to speak, the respect of law, and social practice should be a scale for the act of the right and to embrace the tolerance of human society.
Reference list
Allan, J 2013, Free Speech Is Far Too Important To Be Left To Unselected Judges. The Western Australian Jurist, vol. 04, p. 10, viewed 24 April 2017, <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2013/2.pdf >
Caroline, B 2016, ‘Is Violence Ever Justified In Achieving Change?’, Voices Of Youth, viewed 27 March 2017, <http://www.voicesofyouth.org/en/users/233937>
Garton Ash, T., ‘No Violence’, Free Speech Debate, viewed 24 April 2017, <http://freespeechdebate.idebate.org/principle/principle-6/no-violence>
The Digerati Politics 