FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS. FREEDOM FROM HUMILIATION
COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 28 Feb 2009
Part of openDemocracy’s blog by participants at the International Student Festival in Trondheim, Norway, 20 Feb-1 Mar 2009.
Should there be a limit to free speech? If so, what limits should there be and at what point? Who should exercise these limits? And who has the right to define when humiliation has occurred? These were the issues discussed in this very emotionally engaging plenary session.
Great expectations
Before the speakers entered the stage, an unusually enthusiastic and loud audience filled the Grand Hall to the brim. Not surprisingly – the expectations to this meeting were high as it would deal with a highly sensitive and current issue.
Probably contributing to these expectations was the presence of the current cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten, Flemming Rose, who was principally responsible for the publishing of the much debated Muhammad cartoons in September 2005. The two other keynote speakers were the "never soft spoken" Johan Galtung and Anine Kierulf who have both been working with these issues.
"Democracy demands debate"
First on the stage was Kierulf. With her legal background, she underlined the importance of legal limits of free speech. However, "democracy demands debate". "This is an issue of liberty", she said. She justified free speech for several reasons, one being that in the search for truth it is necessary with a debate. Free speech is essential in a functioning democracy, as well as being a basic liberty in all people. "There are limits to free speech – they are narrow but clear". She continued "what justifies an utterance depends on its context and whether it contributes to a debate of common interest. That is, uttered not for the sake of harassing in itself."
"I believe in both values"
After flipping a coin, Johan Galtung entered the stage next. In February 2006 Galtung had participated in a mediation session during the Muhamad cartoons controversy, and used this as an illustrator for his speech. What astonished him about this conflict was "the inequality of treatment and the refusal of dialogue". Working with reconciliation, Galtung wanted to trace the grey line between the two values discussed tonight. "I believe in both of them". What is the nature of humiliation?, he asked. Criticizing the argument (of Flemming) that there was no intention to harass the muslims, he pointed out that there are fanatics on both sides of this debate. To a highly focused audience, he said "I invite people to explore the consequences of their opinions" and concluded that "we need to find a way to touch the sacred and not humiliate it."
An act of recognition?
Before the audience was allowed to ask questions, Fleming Rose gave his speech. He started off by quoting George Orwell: "If liberty means anything, it means you need to listen to the people who disagree with you". He underlined that he would debate tonight on a principal level. "I believe in human rights. I believe in a free and open society, which also includes immigration!". He talked of some of the background for the cartoons, and how it was meant to be a "journalistic exercise".
He claimed it was an issue not of good manners (in which you act of your own will) but of self-censorship, in which you fear the consequences of your actions. He talked of the fear and intimidation which limits free speech. "A group of some Muslims said ‘these are our limits. And because of that we want to impose these on you’. That is my concern."
Rose continued and called the publishing "an act of recognition of Muslims living in Denmark". "We treated them as we treat other groups in our society – we applied the same standard, we asked the same of them as we do with every other group". This resulted in loud applause from the audience.
Disgusting freedom of speech
There was much debate and strong emotions among the participants in the audience, and this was reflected in the questions after the break. People were direct and engaged. A Greek Orthodox student from Georgia talked of "disgusting freedom of speech" and awoke much applause from the audience.
Another student from Canada asked why others had to suffer for "the experiences of your journalism", and one from India wondered what kind of welcome and equality there is in offending the population? Rose commented that he feels the dictum of Voltaire, advocating tolerance, ("I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") had been turned upside down: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I think you should shut up because I disagree."
Shook hands
Galtung claimed that Rose has overstepped a line. "The point is not the cartoons but the missing dialogue", he repeated. Eventually, Rose and Galtung agreed that the publishing of the cartoon had some positive consequences as it led to a following debate, and they ended up shaking hands across the table. Kierulf concluded this heated debate by saying "there is to much focus on the right [of free speech] and too little of the responsibility that comes with each.
GO TO ORIGINAL – OPEN DEMOCRACY
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Read more
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
COMMENTARY ARCHIVES: