Free Speech
I may not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it. - attributed to Voltaire
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution
Freedom of speech sounds great but it means freedom of speech for hate groups. It allows them to create paranoia in their followers and to incite their followers to violence.
Would it be better if only the "good" speech was allowed? Would it be better if only speech that would preach brotherhood and harmony be allowed? Would it be better if only speech that was constructive was allowed?
Consider the case of Khallid Muhammed a man who organized the "million youth march". He spouted hatred against the whites and the Jews. Should not such a man be silenced?
A group that believes that it would be better if only "good" speech was allowed is the Israeli left. When people criticized the policies of the labor government during the regime of Shimon Peres they faced the risk of being tried for incitement. The accusation of incitement has become a tool for silencing the opposition in Israel.
Is that so bad? Shimon Peres's platform was the platform of peace. He advocated making concessions of land for peace with the Arabs. Certainly peace is more important than land. Shouldn't those who might persuade the public otherwise be silenced?
It seems obvious that the government of Shimon Peres was doing what was best for the region until one considers the arguments of the opposition. One of the arguments of those who disagreed with the government of Shimon Peres was that the land given awake has become part of a terrorist base for attacks against Israel. Another argument was that the increased strategic advantage the land gave the Arabs made a peace less likely. These arguments would never be heard if the opposition was silenced.
What if there is corruption within a government such as that which was led by Shimon Peres, but overall it's policies are better for the country than those of the opposition. Wouldn't it be better to silence the critics of the government than to allow them to overthrow it?.
How do we silence those critics? Do we arrest them? That might only silence a few. We might need more severe measures such as torture. In fact administrative detention and severe beatings of settlers did occur during the Peres regime. An excellent article by Steve Plaut about suppression of free speech in Israel, The Assault on Israeli Democracy, was published in Outpost.
Clearly suppression of free speech is very dangerous. It is a policy that many dictatorial regimes follow. From their point of view they may believe that they are supporting "good" speech and suppressing "bad" speech and their suppression of the opposition is good for the country.
We would never know what was wrong with a leader's policies if his opponents were silenced. Most groups that are in power believe they are right and the opposition is wrong. They believe that the speech that supports their position is good and other speech is bad. If they don't value the right to free speech than there is nothing to stop them from silencing their opposition. There is nothing to stop them from engaging in corrupt policies and from exploiting the people over whom they rule. Without free speech the people wouldn't even know their government is exploiting them. Instead they are likely to blame whomever their government's propaganda convinces them to blame. Usually that is another country their government wants to invade. For example Iraq blamed Kuwait for it's economic troubles. Iraq with all it's oil could be a paradise if it wasn't exploited by the ruling government of Saddam Hussein. His suppression of free speech prevents many Iraqis from realizing that he is the cause of their suffering. As a result many of them support the man who is ruining their lives.
There may be times that someone should be silenced for example perhaps Khallid Muhammed should be silenced. However, another solution is to speak up against him and his arguments. Then one doesn't set a precedent of silencing people. Once a precedent was set to silence Khallid Muhammed others might be silenced whose message we should hear.
