Freedom of speech in a free society

Some people might be deeply shocked by the words, images, arguments and ideas that are sometimes put forward in a free society. But in a free society, we have no right to prevent free speech and block other people’s opinions, even if we all disagree with what is said or find it offensive or immoral. There is certainly a case for curbing language that incites people to violence against others, or that recklessly endangers life and limb – like shouting ‘Fire!’ in a theatre. And there is a case that children need special protection too, which is why we have age classifications on movies and games.

That is very different from preventing particular words, images, arguments and ideas from being aired at all. There can be no such censorship in society of free individuals – for then they would not be free.

There is a practical case for free speech too. People must understand the options available to them if they are to choose rationally and try new ideas – ideas that might well improve everyone’s future. Censorship closes off those choices and thereby denies us progress.

Nor can we trust the censors. Truth and authority are different things. Those in power may have their own reasons–such as self-preservation–to forbid certain ideas being broadcast. But even if the censors have the public’s best interests at heart, they are not infallible. They have no monopoly of wisdom, no special knowledge of what is true and what is not – only debate, argument and experience determines that. And censors may suppress the truth simply by mistake: they can never be sure if they are stifling ideas that will, eventually, prove to be correct. Some ideas may be mostly wrong, and yet contain a measure of truth, which argument can eke out, while the truth of other ideas may become obvious only over time.

The way to ensure that we do not stifle true and useful ideas is to allow all ideas to be aired, confident that their merits or shortcomings will be revealed through debate. That means allowing people to argue their case, even on matters that the majority regard as unquestionable. Truth can only be strengthened by such a contest. It was for this reason that, from 1587 until 1983, the Roman Catholic church appointed a ‘devil’s advocate’ to put the case against a person being nominated for sainthood. It is useful to expose our convictions to questioning. If we believe others are mistaken in their views, those views should be taken on and refuted – not silenced.

From Socrates onward, history is littered with examples of people who have been persecuted for their views. Such persecution often cowers people into staying silent, even though their ideas are subsequently vindicated. Fearing the wrath of the Roman Catholic Church, Nicolaus Copernicus did not publish his revolutionary theory that the planets rotated about the sun until just before his death in 1543. His follower Galileo Galilei was tried by the Inquisition and spent his remaining days under house arrest. Subsequent scientific endeavour and progress in Europe moved to the Protestant north.

Ideas that cannot be challenged rest on a very insecure foundation. They become platitudes rather than meaningful truths. Their acceptance is uncritical. And when new ideas eventually do break through, it is likely to be violently and disruptively.

Certainly, it can be unsettling when people say things with which we fundamentally disagree, express ideas we believe are profoundly wrong, do things we regard as deeply shocking, or even scorn our moral and religious beliefs. And in a free society we are at liberty to disagree with them and to say so publicly. But that is not the same as using the law, or violence, to silence them. Our toleration of other people’s ideas shows our commitment to freedom, and our belief that we make more progress, and discover new truths faster, by allowing different ideas to be debated rather than suppressed.

Adapted from Foundations of a Free Society.

[gview file="http://www.old.adamsmith.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Foundations-of-a-Free-Society.pdf"]

Plus ca change, c'est la meme chose

A little bit of interesting history. We used to have, here in the UK, an official of the Royal Household who determined what might be shown to us proles on the stage. The Lord Chamberlain's office included the responsibility to:

so that he could only prohibit the performance of plays where he was of the opinion that "it is fitting for the preservation of good manners, decorum or of the public peace so to do".

Of course we did away with all that fuddy duddy nonsense with the Theatres Act of 1968. The Earl Peel now has no such responsibility or power.

Yes, of course we did away with all of that fuddy duddy stuff, there's no one able to limit what the proles may see upon the stage or screen:

Seventies comedies would not be allowed on television screens today because they were so racist and offensive, the outgoing head of Ofcom has said.

Ed Richards, who stands down as chief executive of the media watchdog at the end of this month, said programmes from a previous generation were no longer suitable for today’s more enlightened audiences.

What it is that we proles may be shown seems to have changed a little, the August Personage who gets to decide it seems to have changed, but it does still seem to be that the bien pensants of the day get to decide what may or may not be shown to the populace.

Haven't we all had such a radical expansion in freedom and liberty, in cultural expression?

Not that we're in favour of racism, sexism or whatever, particularly. It's just that we can't help thinking that an actual free market in these things would work rather better. If people didn't like what was being shown then they wouldn't watch it and it would quickly fail and be taken off the air. And at least in the Lord Chamberlain's day they were very clear about this: you may not show these things because people would like them too much. The modern censorship is making the opposite argument: you may not show them because no one would like them. But if that is so then we don't need the censorship, do we, because something that no one likes won't survive. We thus suspect that the censorship survives precisely because those censoring know that the populace does not share their views.

How very liberal, eh?

Rated R for Repression

On Monday, a new law governing the type of pornography that can be produced in the UK came into force. From hereon in, online, video-on-demand content made or sold in the UK must conform to the same guidelines binding DVDs sold in sex shops, with content more 'extreme' than the British Board of Film Censor (BBFC)'s R18 classification will permit prohibited.

Such services already had to adhere to the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance on the Obscene Publications Act, which lists a number of activities it is illegal to broadcast. However, the BBFC’s R18 classification is far more restrictive and outlaws the portrayal of a far greater number of sexual acts. There's a very educational list of what's prohibited on obscenity lawyer Myles Jackman's blog should you wish to be exactly sure, but it includes anything other than ‘gentle’ spanking, whipping and caning, activities that can be classified as ‘life endangering’, such as strangulation, the portrayal of non-consensual sex and female ejaculation. The R18 rating also dictates what objects can be inserted into a consensual adult’s body and how, whilst outlawing instances of verbal and physical abuse, even if consensual.

The UK now has some of the most draconian laws on the production of porn in Europe. Mary Whitehouse might smile approvingly from beyond the grave, but for today's warm-blooded Brits this is a real kick in the nuts.

First of all, it’s bad for the UK porn business and its customers. In the grand scheme of things the impact on the fetish porn purveyor may not be huge, because UK citizens can still access content produced from around the world online. A number of UK performers and businesses will be affected, though, and forced to close shop or start lengthy proceedings to attempt to exempt themselves from the purview of the regulations.

These regulations apply to all video-on-demand services, which are regulated by the quango ATVOD (Authority for Television on Demand). ATVOD's authority stems from EU regulations surrounding 'TV-like' services. However, ATVOD takes a very liberal interpretation of what these 'TV-like’ services are, with both the BBC and the Sun newspaper appealing to Ofcom to have themselves removed from such classification. This large regulatory scope means that adult, video-on-demand websites in the UK are considered 'Tv-like’ and regulated as such, whereas in most other European jurisdictions the majority of sites are not.

However, these changes aren’t just bad for the UK’s comparative advantage in pornography - they’re a chilling act of censorship. The EU Directive empowering ATVOD states that content which ‘might seriously impair minors’ should be restricted to protect those under-18. However, completely prohibiting the production and sale of pornography beyond R18 classification is not ‘protecting children’ so much as seeking to prevent all adult’s access to it.

The law change was pushed by DCMS, who argued that the laws surrounding DVDs and online video were inconsistent. Maybe so, but to expand the remit of a censorship board which decides what is acceptable pornography and what is unclassifiably taboo is regressive and a significant restriction on freedom of expression. As Jerry Barnett, founder of the Sex and Censorship campaign claims, the R18 rating is "a set of weird and arbitrary censorship rules", for which "there appear[s] to be no rational explanation…they are simply a set of moral judgements designed by people who have struggled endlessly to stop the British people from watching pornography".

As has been noted, many of the acts prohibited for distribution under the new laws are those which offer an alternative to the mainstream porn offerings, are often performed and enjoyed by women, and considered empowering by those who engage in them. None of the acts are illegal to perform or enjoy, and some are simply bodily functions. We should be expanding the scope of the R18 classification to encompass all legal adult behaviour engaged in for pleasure, not busy censoring. To suggest that adults should be shielded by law from legal, but apparently 'unacceptable' acts of enjoyment is to return to the mentality towards homosexuality in 1967, when it was considered a 'shameful disability' and tolerated only 'behind locked doors and windows and with no other person present on the premises'.

Given that the new law only applies to UK porn producers and will not significantly reduce the amount or type of porn available in the UK, this seems a particularly ill-thought out piece of moralism.  However, one possible concern is that this will be followed by calls for foreign adult sites to register with ATVOD and be censored, or for ISPs to block the sites. And, as Myles Jackman warns, "pornography is the canary in the coal mine of free speech: it is the first freedom to die. If this assault on liberty is allowed to go unchallenged, other freedoms will fall as a consequence". Now that really is obscene.