Free Speech in the Nominal Democracy
Freedom of speech is the right to be wrong, basically. Sometimes Im wrong.
These words were reportedly spoken by the historian David Irving in an interview from his Austrian prison, where he is doing time years of his life for Holocaust denial. Austria and a few other Western democracies still maintain the position that some opinions are crimes.
So, in its way, does democratic Afghanistan, where a few weeks ago a man narrowly escaped a death sentence for converting to Christianity. He was spared only because of Western pressure, notably from President Bush. There has been no such pressure for Irving, whose prosecutor thinks he was dealt with too leniently.
The idea (if you can dignify it with that word) behind the law under which Irving was convicted is that some opinions can incite hate. And Irvings opinions certainly do that, in a way. So the people who hate him have, naturally, stripped him of his freedom. But what kind of fanatic says, Sometimes Im wrong?
Welcome to the twenty-first century. Its not so different from many other centuries, really centuries we pride ourselves on being different from.
If you want to make enemies, speak your mind on a controversial topic. Works like a charm. Youll soon hear from people who will let you know they would, if they could, give you the same treatment Irving got. They may be incapable of coining a fresh phrase, a witty epigram, or an original thought of their own; they may prefer insults and obscenities, which are often the limit of their eloquence, or they may just be mighty indignant that you would say whatever you said.
A man uses the best arguments he can think of, and some men cant think of a better argument than a curse or a threat. This is their perverse way of agreeing with you when they cant bear to admit they do. They might as well come right out and announce they can hope to prevail only by shutting you up with brute force, not by superior reason. They are ceding reason to their opponents.
In a brilliant twist on Voltaires famous (though apocryphal) words, the playwright Tom Stoppard has one of his characters declare, I agree with every word you say, but I will fight to the death against your right to say it.
Stoppard perfectly catches the root of the urge to censor opinion. His formulation is hilarious because if a would-be censor could express himself so well, hed have no need, or urge, to censor. Hed be content to oppose words with better words. Censorship is a confession of failure.
In other words, Stoppard endows his would-be censor with all the qualities such people tend to lack: candor, humor, self-confidence, and self-respect. We expect them to be sneaking prigs.
Most men quarrel because they do not know how to argue, wrote Chesterton, who loved to argue and hated to quarrel. He debated Bernard Shaw on the two subjects most men quarrel about religion and politics and the chief result of their sharp disagreements was a warm friendship that ended only when Chesterton died.
Rarely is the world overrun with men like Chesterton and Shaw, whose numbers seem to have thinned as democracy, were told, has spread. But then, most so-called democracies are really overgrown bureaucratic states, as Robert Frost suggested when he sneered at the bureaucratic regimenting love / With which the modern world is being swept. And that bureaucratic regimenting love is quick to detect hate and even hate crimes in any independent thought. In Orwells nightmare state, the most feared agency of all is the Ministry of Love.
With that sort of love in the air, I wouldnt predict a great future for free speech in the nominal democracies. Not that there will be a formal announcement when its abolished; the process will be gradual, attended as always by reassuring expressions like voluntary compliance until everyone is voluntarily complying.
Oh, now and then there may be a cranky holdout such as Irving who wont comply voluntarily, but the free press, following the voluntary guidelines, wont draw much attention to him. If you yearn to be back in the twentieth century, just remember the great progressive adage: You cant turn back the clock. Especially when people in high places are always turning it ahead.
|Copyright © 2006 by the
Griffin Internet Syndicate,
a division of Griffin Communications
This column may not be reprinted in print or
Internet publications without express permission
of Griffin Internet Syndicate
Archive Table of Contents
Return to the SOBRANS home page.
|FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Click here for more information.|