Freedom of Speech

There have been two things in the press this week that have raised the question of whether there is a limit to free speech, or whether or people should limit it themselves. There has been the anti-Islamic film that has caused such a furore in the Middle East and the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge that have appeared in a French magazine.

People talk about Freedom of Speech as if it is something complete and absolute. They think that they are free to say whatever they like because in the UK we have “freedom of speech” compared to those nasty dictatorial countries like China and North Korea. However, in reality, even in the UK we don’t have complete freedom of speech, which is why we are able to lock up members of the British National Party and the English Defence League every time they distribute leaflets encouraging people to rise up and drive the foreign invaders into the sea. If it’s liable to cause vast amounts of offence, you can’t print it, say it or sing it.

There’s also the fact that having freedom of speech doesn’t give you licence to be an idiot or free you from having to think about the consequences of your actions. The Middle East is a chronically unstable region and has been for as long as I’ve been alive. The recent overthrow of dictatorial regimes and the introduction of democratic governments isn’t going to change that. The guy who came up with the anti-Islamic film which, I believe, paints a rather unfortunate picture of the Prophet Mohammed presumably knows this unless he’s been living under a rock for the last forty years. He knew what effect this film would have once news of it hit the Middle East and he made it anyway. If he didn’t, then the people he made it with should have told him. Either way he’s just gone and thrown a lit match onto the world’s biggest stack of gun powder.

As for the photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge that have appeared in a French magazine, it’s clear that someone needs to take a refresher course in media law. The editor of Closer argued that the pictures were “in the public interest”, the phrase always used in these situations and one that suggests the person uttering it needs to be reminded of the difference between things that are in the public interest and things that the public are interested in. The general public may wish to see topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge. It doesn’t mean they have a right to.

It will be – and in fact has been argued – that since the Cambridges are frequently in the public eye they are fair game. This doesn’t make any sense to me. Just because they are famous, doesn’t mean they are not entitled to a private life. They are in the public eye regularly because of who they are and what they do, and when it is required of them they co-operate fully with the needs of the media. In exchange for this, surely they are entitled to some privacy when they ask for it?

Freedom of speech is a very important weapon in the arsenal of democracy, and one which we should protect. But as with all weapons there is a risk that some people will be inclined to abuse it. When that happens there are consequences and those are rarely, if ever, pretty.