Transcript
John Gartside: Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast. Today you join us for another very exciting episode as we're going to delve into this idea of freedom of speech, a topic which seems to dominate the headlines.
John Gartside: It's constantly occurring in the Western world.
Dejan: Definitely, John. And is dominating the headlines in quite an unproductive way, I think. And what I mean by that is that it not dominating the headlines in the way that, I think, we all agree freedom speech should be encouraged.
Dejan: But it dominates the headlines with sort some people abusing their freedom of speech. And I want to start this off by thought and an idea from German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Dejan: And he famously sort of claims and argues that freedom isn't possible without rules and constraints. He argues that those rules and constraints themselves give rise to freedom.
Dejan: And he gives example of chess. So he says that the reason you've got freedom in chess and got the reason to make your moves is because of the rules of chess themselves, such as the fact that you're only allowed to do this with a pawn, this with a bishop, this with queen.
Dejan: And I think that's applicable to freedom of speech as well. I think the reason we have freedom of speech is because there are some barriers you cannot cross. You cannot incite for violence and you cannot, you know, actively perform a hate crime, basically.
Dejan: But those two examples, I think, are so far removed from what any normal and average person would ever deal with in a lifetime. that they provide the right parameters for people to be able to express themselves. What do you think?
John Gartside: Yeah, I think I am a free speech absolutist. I believe that the vast majority of things people should have the right to say without any consequences. I believe speech facilitates democracy, facilitates discussion and innovation.
John Gartside: However, to go back to Ludwig Wittgenstein's idea you said there, on there being almost constraints to how we view freedom of speech, there should be.
John Gartside: Douglas Carswell said it episode 233, four episodes ago, know, inciting violence, that should not be justified.
John Gartside: You should not, it's not part of freedom of speech to justify violence, to incite violence. So for example, so you've got to have these parameters which you set freedom of speech around. Similarly, you mentioned there, Diane, hate crimes,
John Gartside: perhaps even sort of, I guess, some sort of strains of defamation that inciting violence and hate crimes. These aren't things which are included in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech purely to invoke or to say and express an opinion, something which shouldn't be censored.
Dejan: I do want to sort of build on that as well. And you have mentioned this idea of the problems that come with inciting violence and hate crimes and defamation.
Dejan: And the main problem to me, apart from sort of obvious emotional impact on that personal, physical impact, even in some cases, but it is the fact that they actually actively censor freedom speech.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: inciting violence censors freedom of speech. Even if your sort of incite violence against a particular group of people limits their freedom of speech.
Dejan: Same thing with defamation, same thing with hate crimes. So I do think Wittgenstein's got a great point there, which is that the rules themselves give rise to freedom of speech.
Dejan: The rules that are in place now, and I think they're the right rules of not being able to do things such as incite violence or hate crimes or defame people, do give everyone a voice because it means that no one can be actively silenced for justified beliefs.
John Gartside: Yeah, and I agree you there. Inciting violence against a group almost suppresses their opinions in the sense narrative can form.
Dejan: Definitely.
John Gartside: And this is something we've seen on Twitter recently. And almost freedom of speech nowadays in the UK is an idea which is synonymous with freedom of expression across social media, and in particular Twitter, the marketplace where political views are expressed.
John Gartside: And many people, and it's a thin line. There was a very famous case in the UK of Sun called Lucy Connolly, who, in my opinion, incited violence.
John Gartside: It's very sad. think there have been criminal proceedings to follow her, but she incited violence against a certain group, sort of constructed this narrative around it, which was extremely unfortunate.
John Gartside: And sort of going on from your idea there, people and a common criticism of freedom of speech is what if the opinions are false? Should we allow these opinions which are obviously not true?
Dejan: Thank you.
John Gartside: And we should. And to resort back to another philosopher, you mentioned Wittgenstein, but one who's not too far from him in a way concerning freedom of speech is J.S.
John Gartside: Mill, notably known for formulating utilitarianism. And Mill argues in his book on liberty that all opinions, whether they're false, and even the silent ones are valuable.
John Gartside: you can gain something from them, whether that's debating them and proving them wrong, for example, or it's just having that diversity in opinion. All opinions are valuable, thus we shouldn't censor them.
John Gartside: However, Mill does recognise... there's a line with this. So Mill formulates the harm principle, which says that you can express something even if it's false, but when it's harming people actively, that's where you've got to draw the line.
John Gartside: And that's where the line should be drawn in the UK. I think there has been many examples of clear incitement of violence. there's And the police has been right in those instances to stop that.
John Gartside: However, then I think perhaps the police in the UK have been overly active in trying to suppress freedom of speech, which actually isn't dangerous. Yeah.
Dejan: Yeah, so just to remind our listeners and viewers the Lucy Connelly case, she's a 42-year-old wife of a Tory councillor and she called for people to, and I quote, set fire, end quote, to hotels housing asylum seekers.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: I mean, don't see how anyone can make a case that that is not direct incitement to violence.
John Gartside: It's clear.
Dejan: It is literally calling on people to burn others alive, just like in medieval times. And she was given a 31 month prison sentence. Fully justified, I think. I mean, you cannot actually do that and expect to get away with it because number one is the sort of political climate in the UK.
Dejan: maybe this is a view that some of our listeners won't agree with, but I do think there is an active element of anti-immigration to the point where it's not just about economics or it's about sort of whatever integration, whatever people want claim. I think now is to the point where it's an anti-immigration movement for the sake of being an anti-immigration movement.
Dejan: It doesn't have any basic sort of logic behind the amount of hate and the amount of negative comments immigrants are receiving, both legal and illegal.
Dejan: And, you know, they are in a very bad position themselves because they don't have the right to work as a result Tony Blair government and their provisions because, you know, which again, justified, you can't really work if you don't, if people don't know who you are.
Dejan: But You cannot actively demonize people by saying they should be burnt alive and then expect to get away with it and say that you're a prisoner for free speech. That isn't free speech.
Dejan: That is incitement to violence. And it's an incitement to violence that actively suppresses and silences the right of those immigrants to free speech. Because if you're burning alive, you cannot talk, one.
Dejan: If you're under threat of being burnt alive, again, you can't really talk as well. So, you know, all this rhetoric from people saying, oh, it's my free speech. Well, yes, it is. But your free speech shouldn't actively censor someone else's.
Dejan: I think that's where I draw the line, is you can say whatever you want as long as you're not actively censoring someone else.
John Gartside: Yeah, and I think you make a point in that. Yeah, as in inciting violence can limit one's freedom of speech. But then many, I think, would argue that it can be the other way.
John Gartside: There has been a recent case of, and it works both ways, in the sense that inciting violence does limit freedom of speech.
Dejan: Thank you.
John Gartside: But in this age of social media, voices even from these communities who are unfortunately trying to be suppressed, like illegal immigrants, they have also gained prominence. The recent example, which was just really sad, what this bloke and just, he should be sent to prison, was this man who's been jailed for five years for making these very threatening videos towards Nigel Farage, basically saying to Farage that he wants to kill him.
John Gartside: And that's just totally unacceptable. And that is, this guy is an immigrant who's come to the UK and he's using social media to spread this. And that's incitement of violence as well, similarly.
John Gartside: So he has been, and he received a particularly stringent prison sentence also because of past sort of criminal crimes. associations. But it's that point of free speech absolutists. In my opinion, like I am, you're an absolutist within certain rules and certain parameters.
John Gartside: And that's what needs to be recognized, as many do. But, Diane, a key part of this debate, and I alluded to it earlier, is social media. social media has meant that voices are amplified.
John Gartside: So do you think there should be restrictions on social media in any way to prevent, let's say more disinformation?
Dejan: Yeah, I think just going back to your earlier point before I start on this one.
Dejan: Yeah, again, fairly justified. Hate and summon the violence, summon the violence, you do deserve prison sentence. But, and here comes the but for me, it's not the prison sentence itself, but it's the reaction from a section of the population.
Dejan: Being incredibly happy that this man got sentenced to prison. And these are the very same people that are sort of lamenting all day long about Keir Starmer being, you know, the new Kim Jong-un and there being no freedom of speech.
Dejan: And, oh, how dare they put this person in jail for saying this?
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: Well, I mean, look, if you want to have one standard, it should be the same one.
John Gartside: But it's not true.
Dejan: If you're against Lucy Connolly being put in prison for saying burn the immigrants alive,
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: You should be against this person being put in prison for saying kill Nigel Farage.
John Gartside: Yes.
Dejan: If you say, you know, fair enough, it's ensignment violence like I am, then again, even when it's maybe against your views and maybe against your interests, you should be able to come and say, you know, fair enough.
John Gartside: But I think some are more nuanced than that. And I think there are examples, actually, of... I think the examples of... And it isn't Sakia Starmis, rather the UK police service force.
John Gartside: They have come down particularly harsh on figures for expressing views that are not actually linked in any way to inciting violence. And they've suppressed that. And, mean...
John Gartside: You know, many of those people, I think, that were quite happy when the bloke who threatened to kill Nigel Farge was sent to prison. I imagine some were quite nuanced surrounding Lucy Connolly.
Dejan: Thank you.
John Gartside: And their major frustration at Zakir Starmer was around cases like that of Graham Lynham, someone who just dominated the UK news for several weeks. And, you know,
John Gartside: His was an actual case of free speech absolutism because Lynham's views, whilst they were controversial and whilst you can disagree with them, I didn't really understand them in a manner of how they were sort of inciting violence.
John Gartside: He was expressing an opinion. Fair enough, a controversial opinion. But there's a line between that, in my opinion, and... There's a major difference between that and what Lucy Connolly did.
John Gartside: And Lucy Connolly's, in my opinion, was significantly worse.
Dejan: Yeah, I do think, again, there definitely are some nuanced examples, but the point I'm trying to make is even Nigel Farage himself sort of made tweet about this individual getting imprisoned and seemed quite jolly about it, whilst a couple days earlier he was lamenting about Lucy Connelly.
John Gartside: Yeah. Yeah.
Dejan: Yeah, there are more nuanced cases, but I do think the big thing that we are missing right now in politics, but also in just our societies, not just in the UK, but all around the globe, is this sort of fairness issue.
John Gartside: Thank you.
Dejan: I don't think people are... quite ready or quite sort of willing to put their hands up and say mea culpa I've made a mistake this person does deserve this to happen to them I think people are sort of at the moment and this I think is a result the politics we are having they're sort of pumped up against a certain issue to the point that they are blind in making a decision.
Dejan: And this personal agenda comes between them and a decision.
Dejan: But again, there are obviously overzealous police officers who are, you know, who deeply trespass their sort of mandate.
John Gartside: Yeah. Yeah.
Dejan: And those should be also disciplined.
John Gartside: And you do make a point there as well, Diane, in that a major, in my opinion, one of the biggest obstacles to freedom of speech is Donald Trump.
Dejan: Thank you.
John Gartside: Donald Trump and the right wing are actually trying to limit freedom of speech, as you said there. I think Farage to a lesser extent, but the notable one, and this is mainly because Trump is a leader of the USA, but the notable one with Trump is Trump was trying to remove the TV licenses of left-wing media channels in the States.
John Gartside: That's limiting their freedom of speech, their right to broadcast. Therefore, I don't think, you know, especially someone like Trump, Trump is quite authoritarian in his stance to freedom of speech.
John Gartside: He wants his narrative to be propelled. But yes, back to social media, though. Sorry, sort of detoured around it.
Dejan: Yeah, think it's very difficult. I'll say why. on to the surface level. I do think you should be sort of registered on social media with your real name and sort of who you are.
Dejan: I'm not a big fan of these people with being user 509, writing whatever they think about.
Dejan: And there's no way of getting back to who these people are because they've used this bogus fake email address. and etc, etc. I think if you are going to say an opinion just like you would in real life, just like how you would say it on a podcast, on TV,
Dejan: you should have your face on social media. I don't think there's a difference between sort of you being on Twitter and I really like Cheetos versus you saying that in person.
Dejan: And if that's not a difference for sort of your food preferences, shouldn't be about your political stance as well. Now, the nuance and the issue does come in some places because In certain countries, you're not allowed speak up.
Dejan: You're not allowed physically. mean, you are, but with great consequences. If you do speak up against the North Korean dictatorship, you're probably going to be in a car accident or something like that.
John Gartside: with.
Dejan: So in those cases, yes, I do think there is a need for confidentiality and there is a need for these bogus accounts that can just broadcast information without them...
Dejan: the broadcaster themselves putting themselves at risk. But I do think those cases are so far between that generally... On the large majority, I'm willing to sort of say that us getting less information about these awful dictatorships from unofficial sources or, you know, a couple more whistleblowers, I'm willing to sacrifice that information for the information of the vast majority of society being able to have an identity and for us to know who is saying these ideas.
John Gartside: I suppose it doesn't even need to be that general. It could just almost be country by country in the sense that we live in a democracy.
Dejan: Yeah. Yeah.
John Gartside: think part of democratic values is to be held accountable for your beliefs.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: Within our system, if you are going to tweet about particularly controversial, divisive issues, a big one sort of like vaccine myths, like people under sort of fake accounts on social media have tried to spread quite harmful sort of
Dejan: I mean,
John Gartside: myths around vaccines, you know, they should be held accountable for those beliefs. There shouldn't be this sort of trying to hide, especially in the democratic system in the UK, where you are able to openly criticise without consequence.
Dejan: Yeah, and I do just want to link back to a previous episode we did. We did an episode with the former Minister of Energy from Romania, Sebastián Bordogia.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: And we did discuss this issue of sort of fake news, misinformation, disinformation. And something that came up then with him is that... unfortunately, people on social media aren't held to the same stance as journalists are.
Dejan: And that led to sort of mad conspiracy theories such as, you know, French people stealing gold and water from Romania's lakes. And, you know, there being 50 million water trucks traveling to Romania, which would surround the whole globe about 18 times. And Yeah, I do agree with him. I do think he should be held under the same scrutiny because Unless you're sort of, if you're spreading misinformation, you genuinely believe that's true. You know, obviously there's nothing can about that.
Dejan: But if you're an actor, a political actor, covert or not, who is posting out material meant to inflame the public and meant to sort of spread a message and send a signal, then I think people should know who you are.
Dejan: And if you're curious about that and about that discussion, do head back that previous episode.
John Gartside: Yeah, and it's, as Diane said there, Sebastian Berdugia, someone we interviewed, we've interviewed Douglas Carswell, we've, in the past, we've received support from the Free Speech Union. And in all these sort of instances, this issue has been raised because it's important.
John Gartside: And it's, you know, both of us have expressed how we're big fans of freedom of speech. We believe it facilitates discussion, but that there needs to be limits. And just like a politician's held accountable, or Diane, you said they're a journalist,
John Gartside: We should be held accountable for our views.
Dejan: Yeah.
John Gartside: There are views. We shouldn't have these sort of pseudonyms online. And...
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: I do think, you know, if you do have a controversial opinion, we've all got a few, you know, whether that's conspiracy theories about the pyramids or stuff about immigration, stuff about politics today.
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: We've all got one, at least, that is bit out there. And, you know, I'm happy to be challenged on mine. And I think we all should be, because otherwise, then we're just going to be in this echo chamber and you're just going to hear...
John Gartside: Yeah.
Dejan: stuff that's going to ratify your belief that may be fake.
John Gartside: Yeah, and the easiest thing with social media, think, is that people say things for the sake of it to sort of cause some anger, but there's no need. You don't need sort of spend your life provoking, which I think many like to do.
John Gartside: And with that, we'll finish this episode. It's been a nice short, but I think, you know, quite insightful discussion we have had on freedom of speech.
John Gartside: One of the issues that crops up, so...
Dejan: again again.
John Gartside: Again and then, so hopefully if anyone is listening and interested, they can use this as a bit of substance behind it. Yeah.
Dejan: Thank you. See you next week.
John Gartside: See you then.
