Is free speech a right?
Tom Stoppard argues free speech is not a “human right”.
He argues amongst other arguements
“A ‘human right’ is, by definition, timeless. It cannot adhere to some societies and not others, at some times and not at other times. But the whole parcel of liberties into which free expression fits has a history. To St Augustine, religious tolerance would have been an oxymoron. The concept of pluralism as a virtue is a thousand years more modern than St Augustine. To say, therefore, that the right of free speech was always a human right which in unenlightened societies was suspended from the year dot until our enlightened times is surely beyond even our capacity for condescension.”
In an absolute sense.
Interestingly, there is a sense that speech is a right.
One of the only things humans have been able to do from year dot is express themselves in language and art. It is one of the attributes that (maybe) seperates us from animals.
Stoppard argues that “free speech” is no right.
However, I would say “speech” is a right. It is part of what it means to be human.
So is the ability to speak freely.
I suppose the right Stoppard talks about is the right to do that without fear of retribution – but one can’t take away fear either – that is also what it means to be human.
On a semantic and philosophy level, it’s interesting to note the differences.
comments
One Response to “Is free speech a right?”
-
About me
I'm a playwright and investment analyst. I have a broad range of interests: food, gardening, innovation & intellectual property, sustainability, architecture & design, writing and the arts. I sit on the board of Talawa Theatre Company and advise a CIS investment trust on socially responsible investments.
-
Recent Work
Recent plays include, for theatre: Nakamitsu, Yellow Gentlemen, Lost in Peru, Lemon Love. For radio: Places in Between (R4), Patent Breaking Life Saving (WS).
-
Nakamitsu
-
-
Yellow Gentlemen
-
This is an interesting debate. The modern notion of ‘human rights’ is one that is framed by the ruling power. It allows for the existence of ‘human rights’ by implementing ‘necessary’ measures of security to uphold them. You just have to look at some of the Washington rhetoric on the invasion of Iraq for examples of this. We usually speak about ‘human rights’ in the context of the abuse of rights; it is the contrast between the image of freedom that the ‘oppressed’ aspire to and the state of oppression that ‘they’ live in. Human rights are a parallel social construct to the idea of freedom, which in turn can be read from an economic standpoint. When you are economically dependant on somebody you must obey their laws, no matter how clement, civil or ‘free’ they are. Human rights always exist in juxtapostion to existing systems of governance. So the debate for me really starts at the question of who is upholding our rights and how are they doing it?
Interstingly, in June there is going to be a whole conference devoted to the theme ‘Performing Rights’, it’s the PSi #12 conference which is going to be at Queen Mary university of London.
14–18 June 2006.
I attended #11 in Singapore and presented a paper at #12 in Rhode Island last year. For anyone interested in any aspect of theatre/performance this will definitely be an event worth attending. http://www.psi12.qmul.ac.uk/psi12/index.html
Hope to see you there!