Skip to main content

The Imbalance between Social Equity and Free Speech

Today, we live in a world filled with diversity of all kinds, shapes, sizes, colors, beliefs and so on. We live in a world that is continuously getting smaller by the minute the more we realize the variety of races and beliefs that make up the world's human populace. Many people find it a nice thing when they get to know and understand people they meet as well as their customs, rites, traditions, beliefs and cultural adherences. One can definitely find unity in diversity.

However, such integration is not always followed by understanding. The human mind is capable of ignorance, bias and malicious intent when it comes to expending the least amount of energy on assimilating or accepting other people and their backgrounds. With ignorance of the background in question comes fear, followed by hate and false perceptions of what one in such a situation would believe as the "truth". Over time, through the lies that make up this belief, this person is led to believe that the said background or group is an endangerment to the society he's/she's part of, and advocates for its push out of society in the name of what he believes to be "tolerance". The prime outlet he/she has at his/her disposal is speech, whatever its form may be, in order to spread such a message that calls for intolerance in the society in the name of what he sees as "tolerance", which can prove to be a grave mistake considering that freedom of speech, a basis of libertarian/liberal society, does not mean freedom from responsibility.

With that in mind, "hate speech" conflicts with another libertarian core value: Social Equity. In a libertarian society, all of its citizens and members are granted equal rights and are recommended to coexist together and tolerate one another. By its definition, "hate speech" promotes intolerance for the group involved in the satire or attack. The degree of the response to the said satire depends on the degree of satire itself, whether it may be a simple prank or an obtrusive attack. In some cases, as in the recent cartoon controversy, the protests done by the group under fire in response to the article or item of speech that lambastes them reaches the climax equivalent to an attempt in suppressing what we know as free speech, albeit not free speech itself as a whole. What makes matters worse is that the said media outlet can incite fear into the hearts of those it is attacking of not being accepted into their respective societies, and outrage sometimes results. So, what measures should we as libertarians take to ensure that free speech and social equity go about unharmed both ways?

There are many solutions to this problem, but one must first consider the fact that hate and distrust are social constructs that can not be avoided no matter what. That being said, everyone should become familiarized with the outlets of hate speech and tasteless satire present in the media. Thus, education can be promoted on these issues, as with most problematic issues. Another solution would be to indicate clearly that the opinion of the artist/writer/media producer does not reflect the opinions of the people around him from the production team, the press syndicate or whatever the media outlet he/she hails from.

If such procedures continue, we might see an end to extreme hate speech, and a more accepting society; another outcome might be accepting hate speech if not accepting others as a whole, and that, in my opinion at least, is much better than outright intolerance.

Remember, as Ben Franklin once said: "Everything in moderation." Keep the balance between the two, and we will have a successful, diverse, free and, most importantly, accepting society.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...