At what point should the line be
drawn?
‘Je Suis Charlie’ and the atrocities that gave birth to the
phrase have reignited talks of the Freedom of Speech, but what has become glaringly obvious is exactly how much true liberty the ‘freedom’ entails is
obscure in the eyes of many.
An independent survey by Spiked
Online has been carried out across universities across the country. The
survey explores the University’s official policies and then ranks it, via a traffic
light system, on how fertile the University is for Freedom of Speech. In doing
so it aims to inform the public on the censorship of voices at the most
powerful academic institutions and hold those which severely limit Freedom of
Speech to account.
This survey was carried out at the University of Bristol,
the University of which I attend, and it found that Bristol was a volatile area
for those who wish to speak their minds. The University was given the red
rating, with such reasons as:
‘The university believes that an atmosphere
of free and open discussion is essential to its life and work. Such an
atmosphere can be achieved only if all concerned behave with necessary
tolerance and avoid needlessly offensive or provocative action and language.'
What constitutes offensive behaviour then, and why should I
be told I cannot say what I want if it offends someone? Clearly it is trying to
discourage the slander of minority groups, but at what point does this restrict
actual informative arguments? If I was to shout a racial slur out towards
someone of a different ethnic origin, clearly this would be deemed inappropriate.
However if I, as a male, chose to disagree with a policy of the Feminist
society for instance, would that be inappropriate, or is that my right? How is
it possible to govern such a chalk-line of distinctions and create a policy which
both protects our vocal liberty and minority groups from offence?
Freedom of Speech, as a concept and not an act, is not
supposed to protect those at the abusive end of slander. In fact it exists to
state that we can say whatever we want, no matter how belligerent it may be, as
it is our fundamental right. Whether we choose to be hostile and abuse this
right comes down to our morals and the level of empathy we as individuals
contain.
At the same time, strictly speaking from an institutional
viewpoint, an educational facility, especially one which houses an extremely
diverse student body both in terms of sexual orientation and racial diversity,
has a duty to protect those under its care. It needs to be seen to be actively
encouraging diverse and stimulating discussion whilst simultaneously making
sure minority groups are not discriminated against.
In short, the issue of freedom of speech is a conundrum.
Whilst personally I find the Universities policies perfectly apt, I recognise
that this is somewhat biased as I have never had a viewpoint of my own become restricted
due to its possible offence. In terms of a national and inter-national scale
there has to be a line drawn on what constitutes free speech and what
constitutes deliberately antagonising minority groups which could lead to
violence and the mass demonization of an entire culture. But that is an
argument for another time.
