When it comes to freedom of expression, only one country in the entire world stands up as its champion. The United States. The US has a lot of flaws. Lots of things I don’t like about it. But this is one aspect they have absolutely nailed. Anyone can say anything. Even a man who said he wanted to kill Obama was let off by the court because he was clearly not capable of doing so. Even a threat was not enough. It has to be a valid physical threat. In the US, religions are insulted with impunity. Shows like South Park are broadcast showing defecation on crosses and Jesus. And the US is a predominantly Christian country. All of this depiction is allowed and perfectly legal.
And yet…it works. Contrary to expectations, the US is a pretty civilized place. Just because freedom exists doesn’t mean that people are jerks. Social rules work quite well in keeping people respectful and decent. Coming from India where free speech is regularly restricted, I can tell you that people in the US are far more polite than back home. Morever, there are no riots. No horde shouting “we were offended”. No damage to property and no violence.
But how can this be? The foremost argument that Arab countries and places like India make for restricting free speech is that it preserves “harmony”. That it saves lives. And yet…and yet…where is the disharmony and violence and riots in the US? I’ve never heard of one. No Christian mob goes on a rampage burning cars even though most Americans are deeply religious. No Islamic mob goes on a rampage either. The latest “Innocence of Muslims” film can be watched by all American Muslims. Are they offended? Yes. But are they expressing their offence in violence? No.
A huge “anti Muslim” ad appeared in New York city in subway stations. Everyone could see it. And most Muslims were offended. But what were their reactions? Did they tear it down? Did they run off killing people? No. Here was the reaction of one Muslim:
“It’s not right, but it’s freedom of speech. To put it on a poster is just not right. But it caught my attention and I support freedom of speech, so you got to live with it.”
“You have to live with it”. Magic words. So what’s up with the rest of the world? Why can’t the rest of the world “Live with it?”.
There are some people who blame human nature. They say that the human mind can be deeply offended and that this kind of offence constitutes real harm. As serious as physical harm. That is bull. But let’s take them at their word. Say that emotional harm is every bit as important as physical harm (which it isn’t). So what about they people in the US? Are they unhappy? Are they depressed by going around everyday feeling hurt and outraged? No. What gives?
They can conclude that people in the US are not “real humans” after all [funny :)], or that their genetic makeup is different. But that doesn’t explain how immigrants coming to the US can adapt so easily to the US culture. So the only explanation is that they’re mature. It’s not genes. It’s not “human nature”. It’s maturity. The US population is proof that “offense” is in the eye of the beholder. No one gets offended and then automatically runs off to pick up a gun. Getting offended and letting it ruin your day and feeling deeply emotionally hurt over it is a choice.
Let me repeat that. It’s an important lessson that is tested by experiment. Suffering irreparable harm by something you see is a choice. Your choice.
Don’t blame other people for your choices. People in the US see offensive things every day. Even Muslims. They don’t let it affect them. No one can argue that every single person in the US is somehow superior. That’s preposterous. It’s just that they’re mature when it comes to this aspect of their life.
The US by its very existence demolishes what the Arab countries and places like India claim. There are laws against physical violence. That’s all you need. You don’t require policing of content. Most people in the US are polite and decent. Not because the law forces them to be that way, but because they feel like being that way. And when they see something that offends them, they just walk away or use their own free speech against it.
This proves that going wild when something offends you is not “human nature”. There is no “irreparable harm”. No “wound” that needs addressing. It’s not “inevitable”. It’s a choice. And when you excercise your choice to be deeply outraged, you have only yourself to blame.
Did you hear about the poiltician who made a degrading statement about women in his speech. And more such politicians who suggest women to dress up decently to avoid being raped. Do you think they are exercising their right to speech. Should women not take offense at being considered sex objects. Will you support such men.
In reply to Neha
He has a right to free speech. I support his right to say whatever he wants – I don’t support what he actually said.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In reply to Neha
// And more such politicians who suggest women to dress up decently to avoid being raped.//
Suggesting is expressing one’s opinion. It is very unbecoming of him to say something stupid like this, but unless he’s MANDATING that women dress modestly, he is entitled to his ridiculous opinion.
Here’s what you can do:
– Ignore him
– Counter him with your arguments/Stage a peaceful protest.
– Don’t vote for him and encourage others not to vote for him.
So next time at the bus stop when a filthy male loudly comments on the size of my specific body parts I should defend his right to say it even if I may disaprove it. This has happened with me before and happened with my best friend 2 days back. And the onlookers stand there watching the scene. I’m sure you are the same as those onlookers. And the quotation you made in your reply holds for sensible discussions between sensible people. Evelyn Beatrice Hall didn’t make that statement to defend males who attempt to attack the modesty of women.
In reply to Neha
So what solution would you propose? Should the government make bad manners illegal? If the people who offended you followed you, then that is stalking and they should be punished.
Comments are extremely offensive, rude and obnoxious. But you cannot force people not to be jerks. Ultimately, jerks get their own punishment by people not mixing with them and shunning them. I’m against legislative remedies for things like this.
Just because I support the right of some people to speak doesn’t mean I endorse, support or agree with what they say in any way.
Replying to Neha’s thread above. Bhagwad, at what point does it cross the line between free speech and street sexual harassment? I am all for freedom of speech. But as a women, a man staring at my body parts and commenting at my body parts at a bus stop is street sexual harassment. Just like in an office scenario, making uninvited lewd comments to a colleague is considered sexual harassment.. you don’t have to wait until your are touched or stalked.
In a similar vein, saying racist things to someone is enough to be prosecuted for the laws against racism in the west. It is not considered freedom of speech to say racist things to someone, it considered racism. You don’t have to wait until someone literally hits you.
In reply to Carvaka
The office is a professional environment. The organization can enforce whatever standards of behavior they think necessary. It’s not a public forum. So I completely agree that sexually charged remarks in a work environment should not be allowed and is a basis for getting fired.
I feel the point when free speech becomes sexual harassment is the point where the person at the receiving end actually feels threatened. If a man follows a woman around, stalks her, stands outside her home etc, then all those are very good signs that the person is dangerous.
Since this post about the US, racism is not illegal there. You can be as racist, bigoted and insulting as you want to anyone (including the president) in a public forum and you are afforded the full protection of the law. As long as you don’t get violent. No one will like you of course. That’s the price you pay for being a jerk. But there are no government enforced punishments.
In reply to bhagwad
I think there’s needs to be clarification about Freedom of Speech. In reality, it applies to the government. The government can’t make any laws saying “you’re not allowed to say this, etc.” The first Amendment specifically says this.
As far as making racist comments. While in the United States it’s considered hate speech, there are no laws against it. There have been attempts to regulate, but those attempts have always fallen flat. That’s another issue with trying to limit speech, most of the time it doesn’t work. But to address your point, in a professional setting when someone is making racist and sexually charged remarks, especially on a regular basis, that falls under “creating a hostile work environment.” You would have the right to take legal action.
So is a professional environment excluded from the laws of a country? Can an organization have separate laws for its workers? If making sexual remarks in public is a right to speech then how can that right be violated by an organization? Can gender discrimination at work be allowed if an organization decides it will not employ or promote a worker because of his or her gender?
In reply to Mizel
Certainly a private entity can have different laws. For example, this is my blog. I get to decide what kind of comments I like. I can randomly and arbitrarily moderate in any way I want even if it’s not offensive and is actually constructive. I don’t do that of course, but I can. This means my laws (on my blog) are different from the laws of any country.
You bring up an interesting issue with regard to gender/caste discrimination. In fact in the US there is a raging debate about whether or not it should be allowed. It’s a paradox because I personally believe there should be no gender discrimination even at a private workplace. But philosophically it should be allowed.
I explored this paradox in an earlier post of mine called Dilemmas of a Liberal.
Obviously, the american police and law agencies are a lot busier protecting the rights of its citizens than taking care of violence related crimes. Rightly said mate… united states is a champion not only in protecting the rights of its citizens but also in being the leader in world crime!
In reply to Nashley Thomas
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. If you can show me riot related deaths, or people being killed/raped for their opinions then you might have a valid point.
Let’s not pretend that the US is a perfect country where nothing goes wrong. My point is that in this particular case when it comes to protecting freedom of expression, it’s the world leader.
In reply to bhagwad
Mate… you have my apologies if my words suggested riots or differences in opinion were the cause of all the crime in america. I never correlated america’s crime rate to be caused by murders/rapes for people’s opinions. I completely agree with you that america is the leader in protecting freedom of expression. To this I add that america is the biggest loser in protecting the lives of its citizens. And the cause for that could be (a)the police do not do their job; (b)the people of america are mentally unstable to resort to violence and crime. They may be polite and decent, but they are surely mentally unstable. What other reason would you show to justify the highest rate of murders/rapes and other violent crimes in america? I gotta ask, what use is protection of freedom of expression when a country cannot protect the lives of its citizens? One gotta be alive to exercise his freedom of expression! Lmao :D
In reply to Nashley Thomas
But the two are not linked – I praise the US for the people’s willingness to ignore what they don’t like. In fact, if the crime rate is high, this is even more remarkable. It means that people tolerate opinions they don’t like and don’t riot not because they’re afraid of the law but because they genuinely believe in FoE.
Interesting article. And even more interesting comments. After reading all of it I want to know about the following things.
1. Is the level of loudness of sound or voice related to the freedom of speech (only voice and sound related speech) or is it under control by law?
2. Is there anything in the law of USA regarding obscenity, public indecency and nudity?
In reply to Manish
I believe in public spaces there could be some laws. No one should be forced to hear something against their will. Don’t know too many details about public nudity…
In reply to bhagwad
Does that mean there should be some restrictions to freedom of speech and freedom of expression in public places?
“No one should be forced to hear something against their will.” But you wrote something completely opposite in your article?
In reply to Manish
“Does that mean there should be some restrictions to freedom of speech and freedom of expression in public places?”
Certainly if someone takes a loudspeaker and starts forcing people to listen to them, that is wrong. People should be able to take steps to distance themselves if they want. Like closing a book, closing a web page or not going to see a painting in the museum. Or not reading something.
“But you wrote something completely opposite in your article?”
Can you show me where I said that?
In reply to bhagwad
In the article you wrote one has to “live with it”. But now you said “No one should be forced to hear something against their will.”
If someone takes a loudspeaker and starts forcing people to listen to them then shouldn’t the person with the loudspeaker be stopped? If not then how to escape such a person with a loudspeaker?
In reply to Manish
When I said “live with it”, I meant they have to live with the book, website, or painting existing in the world. Most people want something banned not because they can’t avoid it but because it exists. How many people who want it banned do you think have actually read Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic verses”?
Someone with a loudspeaker in public cannot be avoided. So yes – let them instead express himself in a way that people can choose not to hear/read/see/browse him/her.
In reply to bhagwad
What if one does not have a choice not to hear? Then should the person with the loudspeaker be stopped?
In reply to Manish
That’s what I said no?
This is why there are also noise pollution laws.
In reply to bhagwad
So if the person is creating noise pollution then his freedom of speech can be curtailed? If yes then the law does limit the freedom of speech in specific circumstances?
In reply to Manish
When they encroach on someone else’s freedom, yes of course. Just like you can go anywhere you want, but you can’t walk onto someone’s property without their permission.
Mind you, only the sound level is being curtailed. Not the person’s freedom of expression as such. He/she has as much freedom of speech as they did before.
” I praise the US for the people’s willingness to ignore what they don’t like. ” The fact that the crime rate in the US is so high means that people in the United States DONT IGNORE what they don’t like; they strike back – violently as do most other human beings on planet earth.
Coming back to this issue of freedom of speech. Its rather like what takes place between parents and children. Parents cant ban their children from saying what they like, but they try and try ( and try ) to make their children understand right from wrong. So those countries like the US that believe in the freedom of speech, must also inculcate into their citizens the importance of how to use their freedom of speech responsibly. Said it before and will say it again – freedoms come with responsibilities. We do NOT live in a civilized world – the US with highest rates of crime is not civilized either. If ALL humans were civilized to the degree where they could control their animal instincts there would be no need for laws. The fact that every country HAS laws indicates that human beings still need laws to curb their natural instincts when they are threatened.
In reply to tp
There is no reason to think that the crime rate of the US has anything to do with freedom of expression. Just because two factors exist simultaneously doesn’t mean that one caused the other.
“If ALL humans were civilized to the degree where they could control their animal instincts there would be no need for laws.”
Most humans can. The laws are there to be used for those who can’t control their animal instincts.
In reply to bhagwad
Where is the proof that NO crime in the US has anything to do with freedom of expression ??? Why would a person murder someone in the US ??? Is the US a third world developing country that people have to murder becoz they dont have money to buy food ??? Why would a man in the US rape a woman ??? Is it because most men are uneducated and unemployed and cannot keep their libido in check ???
Rapes and murders happen becoz the criminal cannot keep his animal instincts under control !!! If the people of the US were so mature they would be able to control their instincts and then the crime rate of the US wouldnt be the highest. Just becoz they dont react in groups against things that offend them doesnt mean they dont react at all. How can the people with the highest crime rate be called mature ???
In reply to K T
Two most important reasons for crimes – money and sex. Till proven otherwise, these are assumed to be the reasons for elevated crime.
In any case, this is a futile argument. Even if (and this is a HUGE if, so don’t quote me on this) crime is increased because of freedom of expression, I (and most Americans) will gladly pay that price.
Freedom is worth it.
In reply to bhagwad
I really hope that you are not related to the field of law in any manner. Coz if you are, then I can only feel sorry.
No crime is and can be dealt on assumptions. Money can be the leading cause but not the only cause of crime. And most importantly, motive itself is not a legal element of crime. It is the intent or ‘mens rea’ (the mental purpose of performing an act that is forbidden by law) that is the legal element of crime. To get the difference between motive and intent read http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Motive.pdf The same holds true for sex too.
You have confused the concept of freedom with the liberty to misuse freedom. The makers of the constitution of the US had the best intentions when they provided for the freedom of speech and expression. But they were sensible enough NOT to make it absolute and complete. But over generations, the US has escaped from applying sensibility to the right to freedom of expression to save itself from the embarassment of not following the law as it is in print.
It is so funny how the US is selective in providing the right to freedom. A person who intends to offend someone has full right to do so. But no one has the right to not to be offended just becoz emotional hurt cannot be measured or proved. But abusing is perfectly legal even though it is driven by emotions as well. And a person is expected to run and hide from anything that hurts him emotionally rather than telling the offender to find another place or person to abuse.
It can be disastrous to provide complete freedom of expression to people who are so spontaneous in committing crime. And that is what has happened in the US which has resulted in the highest crime rate in the world. People in the US do not take out processions and riot if they are offended. They just simply pick up their gun (possession of which is completely legal in the US) and shoot down people.
It is people like you who would gladly accept crime in order to use (or misuse) their freedom of expression rather than making their own life productive instead of concentrating on offending others.
In reply to K T
Again – the burden of proof showing that crime in the US is because of freedom of expression falls on you because it’s an outrageous claim.
If you truly feel that crime in India is less than the US…I don’t know what you’re smoking.
Also, I didn’t say I enjoy offending others. I said I want the right to offend the others. I may never make use of that right in my life. But it has to be there. Otherwise there is no freedom.
In reply to bhagwad
I never said ALL the crime in the US is due to freedom of expression. I only opposed your outrageous claim that NO crime in the US is due to freedom of expression.
Even after all the compiled data and reports around the world showing the US to be the leader in world crime (many of which are not only conducted by US agencies but are confirmed and accepted by the US too) if you continue to claim that crime in India is more than the US, then instead of me it is you who is being affected by what I’m smoking.
Since you dont enjoy offending others and may never do so too, but still want your right to offend others, then thankfully there is one right for which you will not need to demand for. And that is your right to go to a psychiatrist to get yourself treated !!! (which is something you really appear to be in need of)
In reply to K T
Consider the number of times you read a newspaper article which has the phrase “The police refused to register an FIR”.
Take that into consideration and then tell me that India’s crime statistics are lower.
America actually has far less freedom of speech than advertised.In some aspects it is worse off than even North Korea .It is just that it is far more covert.But sure,on the whole, it may be better than many other nations.They certainly won’t throw you in jail if you question the Holocaust,like how a lot of Nazi Europe does.Nor will they have village raids ,mass burnings and wholesale manslaughter like they do in India,Pakistan,Egypt,etc.
Americans do hold freedom of speech as their most sacred right,both the conservatives and the liberals,but increasingly only for their own factions(liberals in the US tend to promote far more censorship though towards anyone who does not agree with them).
So is it fine to go nude in a public place like a park or a market in the US? I dont think that encroaches on someone else’s freedom.
In reply to Manish
I think in a perfect world people should even be allowed to have sex in public. I’d written about this very thing in an earlier blog post: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2011/philosophy/dilemmas-of-a-liberal.html/
In reply to bhagwad
But you also think that US has “nailed it” in terms of freedom of expression. But it does not allow sexual acts in public.
In reply to Manish
Yeah, you’re right. They can definitely improve.
One day hopefully we (as a species) will be mature and civilized enough to be able to ignore anything. Even people having sex in public.