One of the things I have been in turmoil about recently is what I think of free speech. I haven't come to an answer, but here are my rambling thoughts.
As an undergraduate a certain debating union invited Jean Marie La Pen to speak. There was outcry about this, opinions, anger and long words I didn't understand were thrown around. The repeated argument for, was that free speech was important. I couldn't help feeling that inviting someone to speak was slightly different to allowing people to say what they wanted. The other argument sited was that he would get torn apart by the audience, with overtones of 'Where else will he get so well scrutinised?'. Which I had a suspicion at the time and am now certain is just a touch arrogant.
I couldn't quiet make up my mind what I felt, which is not something I felt I could admit (proving that speech isn't free!) as your meant to know everything when your 19 and headed off not sure whether I would go in or stand outside with the protesters. In the end I got there late so the decision was made for me, doors were closed and I was stuck with protesters, engaged in heated debate with other late students. I was repeatedly given a socialist workers party paper, asked to pay 50p, explained I had no money on me and gave paper back. This honestly happened about 3 times in a row. Was told by a woman wearing an anarchist bag that people who didn't believe in democracy shouldn't be allowed to engage in political debate and overall came away no more clear.
It sounded from reports like it had been a bit of a farce inside with the translator clearly miss-translating and getting very angry when students replied in French.
My thoughts about what extent we should allow free speech went on the back burner till last year and the whole ridiculous Terry Jones Koran burning thing. Watching the Americans with their hands tied unable to act because of an absolute commitment to free speech made me quiet glad to be European and have curbs on 'free speech'.
As an undergraduate a certain debating union invited Jean Marie La Pen to speak. There was outcry about this, opinions, anger and long words I didn't understand were thrown around. The repeated argument for, was that free speech was important. I couldn't help feeling that inviting someone to speak was slightly different to allowing people to say what they wanted. The other argument sited was that he would get torn apart by the audience, with overtones of 'Where else will he get so well scrutinised?'. Which I had a suspicion at the time and am now certain is just a touch arrogant.
I couldn't quiet make up my mind what I felt, which is not something I felt I could admit (proving that speech isn't free!) as your meant to know everything when your 19 and headed off not sure whether I would go in or stand outside with the protesters. In the end I got there late so the decision was made for me, doors were closed and I was stuck with protesters, engaged in heated debate with other late students. I was repeatedly given a socialist workers party paper, asked to pay 50p, explained I had no money on me and gave paper back. This honestly happened about 3 times in a row. Was told by a woman wearing an anarchist bag that people who didn't believe in democracy shouldn't be allowed to engage in political debate and overall came away no more clear.
It sounded from reports like it had been a bit of a farce inside with the translator clearly miss-translating and getting very angry when students replied in French.
My thoughts about what extent we should allow free speech went on the back burner till last year and the whole ridiculous Terry Jones Koran burning thing. Watching the Americans with their hands tied unable to act because of an absolute commitment to free speech made me quiet glad to be European and have curbs on 'free speech'.
But whether or not people are officially free to say what they like, speech is very very rarely free. The guardians 'comment is free' thing is not really true, it's a nice prophetic statement a hope of what could be but really we are very rarely free to say what we want, there are so many ways discourses are silenced. Inviting Strauss-Khan to the above mentioned institution may "provide a neutral platform for free speech" but what does it do for free speech on other platforms, what does it do for free true real narrative, how does it help people take back control of their own stories? How does it help us hear those stories that are true?
The thing is you can talk but your speech is only free if its given permission to fly, to transform the world with all the power you gave it, much that is spoken is not free it is silenced, squashed, entrapped, belittled, mocked. And typically the powerful tend to be the ones with the power to determine which speech is freed and re-freed and repeated ad-nauseam so that no one can remember when it wasn't 'true' and it is the disempowered who's shouts become whispers by the ever squashing of the controllers of truth.
If the Cambridge Union want to really 'provide a neutral platform for free speech' then they need to put a lot more effort into making their platform neutral and free.
I was incredibly moved by these honest and real words (link bellow, blog entry carries trigger warnings), that in no way were free they cost many people much to give but they gave them to the world, they gave them for free. Lets keep this speech free, don't let them silence and imprison this: http://feministactioncambridge.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/i-am-still-shaking/comment-page-1/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please do let me know what you think. I am well aware I am not always right!