The Line Between Free Speech and Hate Speech

A while back someone complained to me about performing the song 'Blurred Lines' because according to her, it promotes rape culture. Moreover, recently through an online conversation, someone expressed she didn't appreciate me sharing a clip of one of my favourite tv comedy shows, Scrubs, not because the clip offended her but because the show objectifies women.

She went on further to exclaim shows that perpetuate the objectifying of women or racism should be censored from TV!

There goes 90% of all the entertaining TV shows.

There is something very important in the western civilization known as freedom of speech.
It seems that many of us within our society think we have a right to prevent an artist from performing a song, an author from publishing a book or someone from speaking their mind because the content may be offensive or potentially harmful.

Who decides whether your opinion is potentially harmful or unscientific? The majority?

200+ years ago the majority of Americans would have locked you up for expressing views on the abolition of slavery. If you believe we've progressed a great deal since then, it's worth noting that in the 1980's, people commonly believed babies felt no pain as their brains weren't developed enough. The public has an alarming tendency to label the truth as 'Fake News' or 'Hate Speech' due to our tendency for buying into the cultural narrative.

The only way to bring about change in the minds of the masses is to allow for commerce in the marketplace of competing ideas.

Whether you're part of a marginalised group or are simply trying to prevent hurt feelings is irrelevant. As a universal human right and as a matter of Natural Law, someone DOES have a right to express racist, sexist or whatever themes they deem appropriate within a TV show, song, or publicly. If you don't like it, don't watch it. This issue is not about your feelings and is about basic human rights.

Racism and the objectification of women can be distasteful but they are not human rights violations per se. If you want to abolish hurtful or distasteful opinions, then educate people through open dialogue but don't be foolish enough to presume that you are morally justified in advocating for laws that hinder peoples freedom to express their oppinions.

Rights are defined in the negative, meaning they are to defend you from what others may do to your liberty, person and your property. However, you do not have a claim on what someone can do and say provided they are not committing fraud or inciting actual violence.

Like with most issues, the devil is in the details. The general public and modern law look at violence not within the classical framework of a violation of someone's person or property but have expanded this to include discrimination, bias and prejudice. These concepts have no basis in Natural Law and only act to restrict someone's ability to express oppinions.

The censorship of free speech which many people seem to advocate for may come from a compassionate place and ultimately aim to bring about equality and prevent harm, however, a society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither.