A heavy price to pay for free speech

Social debates are tricky things, aren’t they? You have strong principles that you try to convey, but your acquaintance (read opponent) just doesn’t seem willing to cede your point of view. You grow more and more frustrated, battling against that tightening in your chest, trying to maintain the plastic smile designed to reassure everyone that you are not taking it all too seriously, even if you actually think the topic at hand extremely serious and your debate partner extremely obtuse.

There is one particular reaction that causes me to lose this battle, and explode into a red ball of boiling rage. I cannot stand those lazy debaters who use ‘freedom of speech’ as a get out clause. After laying claim to an opinion I find bigoted, intolerant, reprehensible, and enduring my response, they look me up and down and say, “Well, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, Abbey.” Or, eyebrows slightly raised, “Are you saying I’m not allowed an opinion?”

Alternatively, they might engage in a discussion, realise their view is actually ill-informed, and try to get out of justifying it with my personal favourite, “I’ve got freedom of speech, I can say what I want.” As though my disagreement is an attempt to deprive them of this freedom.

Cue explosion, because that is just not the case. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows everyone the ‘freedom to hold opinions without interference.’ I find this very vague, because on first reading it appears to prohibit discussion. However, the Oxford Dictionary informs me an opinion does not need to be based on facts or knowledge. So now I begin to understand; we have been using the word ‘opinion’ incorrectly. My acquaintance may have the opinion that the Leicester Tigers are the best rugby team in the country, or that polka dotted curtains will look great in their living room, and it would be churlish of me to say, “You’re wrong.” But asserting that gay people should or shouldn’t get married, that women should or shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions – those aren’t opinions. They are arguments. Arguments, unlike opinions, must include reasons, facts, experiences, or all of the above.

Freedom of speech does not entitle you to argue without interference; only to hold an opinion. And in my opinion, a divisive, hate-filled, archaic argument, expressed by someone who is unable to justify their view in a manner appropriate to informed discussion, doesn’t qualify as an argument at all. It’s just a feeling, an instinct, thoughtless and often offensive. If they fail to back it up, the debate ends on my terms, and nothing rankles me more than some smug acquaintance trying to overturn it by portraying me as the freedom-of-speech-snatcher.

Freedom of speech is one of the oldest and most important human rights. It was a keystone of democracy in Athens as far back as the 6th century B.C.E, and remains so. Without it we would not have democracy, or politics, or even education in their current forms. There are many intelligent discussions we could be having about freedom of speech, such as the debate surrounding Wikileaks or North Korea. We could talk about societies where certain groups of people are still denied these basic freedoms.

But using freedom of speech as a get out of jail free card to avoid arguing with, and potentially learning from someone, trivializes the whole concept. We should be grateful for the opportunity to present our arguments when so many face censorship or punishment for doing so. Debating and discussing with people who disagree should excite us!

As a young teen, I told everyone within earshot all about how I was “allowed an opinion.” Let us all make a pledge never to utter those words again. Let our arguments be well researched, well informed, and well expressed. Let us have facts and statistics at our fingertips. Let us not be ashamed to admit when we know too little about the topic to engage in debate. Let us refrain from offensiveness and defensiveness. Discussion is healthy!