Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
http://cybercynic.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/speech-isnt-free/
subject will be permitted to say what he likes! For it is generally agreed that speech is by many degrees
1 of 3
05/11/2012 20:46
http://cybercynic.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/speech-isnt-free/
inferior to action, and therefore, we should suppose, must be more rigidly discouraged. Our language is full
of sayings to that effect. Speech is silver, we say, and Silence is golden; Deedsnot words; Least
saidsoonest mended; Keep well thy tongue and keep thy friend* (Chaucer); For words divide and rend,
said Swinburne, but silence is most noble till the end; Say well is good, but Do well is better; and so on. There never can have been a nation which had so wholesome a contempt for the arts of speech; and it is curious to find so deeply rooted in the same nation this theoretical idea of freedom and unfettered utterance, coupled with a vague belief that this ideal is somewhere embodied in the laws of our country. No charge was made in this case of seditious, blasphemous, or defamatory language, and in the absence of those the petitioners claim some divine inherent
right to pour forth unchecked in speech the swollen contents of their minds. A Briton, they would say, is entitled to speak as freely as he breathes. I can find no authority or precedent for this opinion. There is no reference to Free Speech in Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights.
The DPP contended that was certainly arguable that in those days English courts placed too little emphasis on free speech and gave too much weight to restrictions on that right.There was no statutory framework to guide the courts in human rights cases. Parliament itself was undoubtedly a little too indifferent to the lack of effective legal protection. But in 1966, the Government decided that complaints of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights on the part of UK public authorities could be made to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights.The introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 took this process a critical stage further. It requires all existing and future legislation, so far as possible, to be read and given effect to in a way that is compatible with Convention rightsincluding the right to freedom of expression. Thus the Human Rights Act strongly asserts the right to speak freely, but pragmatically balances this right with the requirement for states to provide for their citizens protection. Continuing the DPP said that you can think what you like though expressing an opinion at a particular time and place can become criminal. But an opinion, in and of itself, cannot be criminal. Ever. Just as the law should not
attack thought, it should also be slow to proscribe speech or expression simply because it is capable of causing offence. If you want to be able to say things that others dont like or find challenging, you need to be willing
to hear things that you dont like. To judge whether you agree with something or not, first of all you need to hear it. Free speech isnt just the freedom to be nice. New ideas or arguments, or views that challenge received wisdom, may offend some people. But the price of living in a free society is that we may be confronted with views we find
challenging.This is an essential aspect of democracy. It strengthens our constitution.People can be offensive and
tasteless. What is important is that others are able to expose, challenge, and ridicule what they say through open debate. The most effective way of dispelling ignorance and prejudice is through free speech.
Share this:
Like this:
Be the rst to like this. A.P. Herbert, Albert Haddock, constitution, MyT, UK
2 of 3
05/11/2012 20:46
http://cybercynic.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/speech-isnt-free/
Top
3 of 3
05/11/2012 20:46