If we live in a democracy everyone is entitled to outline their political views no matter how hideous.
Voters will determine whether they are good or not not politicians.
Okay I understand you cannot have pure free speech as you cannot shout fire in a cinema but I do not like people determining what you can say.
Over in the 'land of the free' the government has determined you cannot speak up for palestinians at all. if you are a visitor or foreign student or a green card holder you can be immediately deported. Indeed it gets worse you cannot criticise donald trump otherwise you get the same treatment.
Back here in OZ if I am so stupid to support Hamas or any other terrorist organisation then why shouldn't I. There are obviously limits to what you can say such as threats to people but let people say what they think. After all stupid ideas are always stupid ideas
Why are we so afraid of what people say?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, and people should generally be free to express their political views, even unpopular ones. However, there are two important caveats beyond the fire in a crowded theatre example:
ReplyDeleteFirst caveat: Fear and intimidation. Harm from speech isn't always as obvious as shouting fire in a cinema. It can be subtle and insidious - repeated dehumanising rhetoric about particular groups, dog whistles that signal violence without explicitly calling for it, or patterns of harassment that create climates of fear. When speech is used systematically to make people afraid to participate in public life, attend places of worship, send their children to school, or express their own views, it undermines the very democratic discourse it's supposed to protect. The harm accumulates gradually, making it harder to identify a clear line, but no less real in its effects.
Second caveat: Demagoguery. The assumption that stupid ideas are always stupid ideas and voters will simply see through them doesn't account for how demagoguery works. Skilled demagogues can use inflammatory speech to manipulate emotions, scapegoat minorities, and erode democratic norms in ways that make rational evaluation difficult. History shows us that dangerous ideas, when amplified by charismatic leaders, can gain mass support and lead to catastrophic outcomes - sometimes by the time voters determine whether they are good or not, democratic guardrails have already been dismantled.
The challenge is finding the right balance between protecting robust political debate and preventing speech that actively undermines the conditions necessary for democracy to function.