Wikipedia
In practice the most deceptive forms of speech are designed to limit other people's privilege to speak, and all to often even people's right to speak. This corollary follows from George's insight I believe as it does too from Voltaire's. It then follows that if you are practicing such deception, you would protest most ardently for your own right to free speech, fearing that if you do not protest then surely your deceit will be illuminated by more reasonable people.
For example, throughout history while many of us enjoy living in a democracy, there are always cabals seeking to suppress other people's right to vote, consequently their right to free speech. Recently in Canada we have had a scandal of 'robo calls' designed to misdirect target voters to their polling place and/or time. Interestingly enough this closely follows similar scandals in the United States in many places. In some cases malefactors in this sin are entire state governments who pass legislation to limit access to voting on the incredibly transparent excuse to reduce voter fraud, simply to exclude those most likely to vote against them or their friends.
While there are very stringent rules that limit free speech in areas of defamation such as libel and slander, during political campaigns these limits are rarely enforced. In other contexts, such as a court of law, the limits of speech are extreme - under testimony speech is not a right, or a privilege, but actually an obligation - whereby perjury can have harsh consequences. This should come as no surprise when the outcome of the trial may sentence the defendant to pay a fine, be incarcerated, or even forfeit their life. And here is the point I do not get at all - when it comes to electing someone to lead a country, who has the ability to commit the country to a war costing a trillion dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of persons - the political campaign is treated with no more seriousness than a TV reality show.
My argument is thus: if we can use such critical limits to speech in the trial of a single person where the outcome may simply be inconvenient, should we not use at least as critical limits to speech in a political campaign where the outcome could be giving the elected the power to tyrannize millions or even destroy the world. Here are some simple principles I believe should hold in political campaigns and elections:
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.For most of my life I have not struggled with this concept as I have simply held it to be an ideal or principle that was obvious. As a child I was generally encouraged to speak up, ask questions, challenge claims, and generally say my piece. True, from time to time I was punished for some of the things I said, and usually they were the stupid things children say that inappropriate. However, often enough as a child I was punished for expressing myself, and even as I child I was pretty clear I was being punished because of revealing inconvenient truths.
Mind your speech a little lest you should mar your fortunes.Rather than argue the obvious (laughing out loud) merits of freedom of speech, I will set forth to argue against it, or at least to argue for better limits on it.
William Shakespeare
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.There is very much more insight in George's words than appears on the surface.
George Washington
Men use thought only as authority for their injustice, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts.The point I am making is that it not hard at all to abuse the right to freedom of speech. And in most cases it is a right and not a privilege. In general the privilege of speech is about who and how big your audience is, and not what you say. I have come to believe of late that the people who argue most ardently of their right of free speech usually have the most privilege to speak and have the most deceptive things to say.
Voltaire
In practice the most deceptive forms of speech are designed to limit other people's privilege to speak, and all to often even people's right to speak. This corollary follows from George's insight I believe as it does too from Voltaire's. It then follows that if you are practicing such deception, you would protest most ardently for your own right to free speech, fearing that if you do not protest then surely your deceit will be illuminated by more reasonable people.
For example, throughout history while many of us enjoy living in a democracy, there are always cabals seeking to suppress other people's right to vote, consequently their right to free speech. Recently in Canada we have had a scandal of 'robo calls' designed to misdirect target voters to their polling place and/or time. Interestingly enough this closely follows similar scandals in the United States in many places. In some cases malefactors in this sin are entire state governments who pass legislation to limit access to voting on the incredibly transparent excuse to reduce voter fraud, simply to exclude those most likely to vote against them or their friends.
While there are very stringent rules that limit free speech in areas of defamation such as libel and slander, during political campaigns these limits are rarely enforced. In other contexts, such as a court of law, the limits of speech are extreme - under testimony speech is not a right, or a privilege, but actually an obligation - whereby perjury can have harsh consequences. This should come as no surprise when the outcome of the trial may sentence the defendant to pay a fine, be incarcerated, or even forfeit their life. And here is the point I do not get at all - when it comes to electing someone to lead a country, who has the ability to commit the country to a war costing a trillion dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of persons - the political campaign is treated with no more seriousness than a TV reality show.
My argument is thus: if we can use such critical limits to speech in the trial of a single person where the outcome may simply be inconvenient, should we not use at least as critical limits to speech in a political campaign where the outcome could be giving the elected the power to tyrannize millions or even destroy the world. Here are some simple principles I believe should hold in political campaigns and elections:
- Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Deuteronomy 5:20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Penalties of libel and slander should be most extreme, and arguable in court. - A campaign platform should be a legal contract. If an elected official later deviates sufficiently from that contract then the harshest penalties of 'breach of trust' or even 'treason' should apply.
- Opinion must be separated from fact. "In my opinion gay people should not have the right or privilege of marriage" is very different from "The vast majority of people are against gay marriage." The former statement gets a pass, while the latter should be prosecutable as it is unsupportable and clearly deceptive. In particular the statement "God hates homosexuals" should be prosecuted on several levels (a) hearsay - no-one can speak for God, (b) hate - appealing to hate or inciting hate is clearly a crime in most modern countries, (c) defamation - it makes God sound like an awful person an sullies his/her reputation.
