When the Friends of Voltaire needed a way to sum up the philosopher's stance on a controversial issue, they came up with the perfect line.
'Je désapprouve ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire.' It's usually attributed to Voltaire himself, but it was said about him; and about the way he thought.
It's usually translated as, 'I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Freedom of Speech is very easy to defend, when those opinions expressed chime with your own worldview. It's when the 'opposition' get to speak too that distaste can turn into a wish to silence them.
I learned this lesson as a young student on the steps of a town hall, back in the 1990s. As a member of the Anti-Nazi League, I was working to combat racism and other expressions of hatred.
The far right British National Party (BNP) had a candidate standing in the local council elections. A coachload of us turned up to picket the steps into the forum, where each of the candidates would be addressing members of the public. Our remit felt so correct, as we left the University. We were to stop the 'Nazi' entering that hall.
He turned up, in his suit and tie, looking every inch the respectable gentleman. We crowded into his pathway, screaming Anti-Nazi slogans at him. He stood undaunted before our masses.
"You're trying to stop my freedom of speech. You're trying to silence a dissenting voice; and you call me a 'Nazi'." He said. For most of my peers, that was their cue to yell at him about his racist policies. For me, it was a wake up call.
What on Earth was I doing here? I was the only history student there. I was the only one who was in the process of studying, at graduate level, the rise of the Third Reich. I knew the reality behind our chants, our placards and our slogans.
He was right. In our bid to focus on the issue at hand, we'd missed the bigger picture. We'd become the very thing that we sought to challenge.
Watching the backlash against Westboro Baptist Church now reminds me of standing on those town hall steps.




To my mind, there is no real defense for the message and actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. Every syllable of it is repellant to me. Every second of their protest raises the gall in my throat.


It would be hypocritical of me to say that I haven't thrilled to the backlash against the Westboro Baptist Church. In fact, I've warmed to the wry observation that it's the closest to societal unity that I've ever experienced.


Comments
JoHarringtonAug 5, 2013
You're right on the latter too. But I also think that 'politically correct' has been diverted into being a bad thing. There are those who express bigotry, but call it honesty and justify it as 'not being politically correct'. Like bigotry is better.
I don't think I've explained that very well. It's been a hard day and I'm tired. But I hope I got the general essence across.
frankbeswickAug 5, 2013
I think that certain people will accuse their opponents of hate speech, even if there is legitimate disagreement and no hate has been expressed or incitement to hatred made. This has been a common tactic among the poltiically correct. It is totalitarianism masquerading as egalitarianism.
JoHarringtonJun 11, 2013
But then you have to assume that everyone listening has the ability to tease opinions from facts, and see through clever words designed to make things look good or bad. Unfortunately that kind of discernment isn't wide-spread.
I love what you're doing encouraging civilized debate though.
cazortJun 11, 2013
I think that I personally see freedom of speech as something that has reasonable limits. On the other hand, I'd rather people deal with problematic forms of speech by ways other than law enforcement.
One problem I see with groups that persistently promote hate speech and other negative extremist speech, is that I think they are given too much media attention, and thus too much power. If people didn't write about them, they'd quickly become marginalized. (Note, I'm not even referring to them by name, which illustrates how I'd like other people to treat them too.)
One of the reasons I co-founded the group Why This Way, is that I wanted to promote more respectful dialogue in society as a whole, and I wanted to create a system that would promote respectful dialogue through consensus building and establishment of a positive culture of respect and listening. I'm hoping that this group and its ideas, and other groups and movements like it can help address problems like the ones you discuss in this article, without the need for invoking laws and courts and such.
I personally think that when the law and court system becomes involved, it's a sign that things have gone too far for me. I'd rather we find ways to address the problem before it gets to that point. I'd ideally like to live in a society where respect and positivity is the norm, and where hate speech is largely ignored, and people reach out to give help to the people engaging in it rather than amplifying their message and attacking them in turn, as often happens in our society. I think it's possible to overcome these sorts of things by a combination of filtering out the hate speech and focusing on building a culture of positivity and respect.
JoHarringtonJan 15, 2013
Different laws govern slander. Those are the laws which should also take down bullies on Facebook (and everywhere else, most definitely in the playground). Emphasis on the 'should' there.
The First Amendment protected political, civil and cultural discord. I don't believe either that it was there to shield personal attacks. But if we're talking about emotional level harm, then Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, the NRA, Fox News and a whole host of other people should be forced to shut up. They're causing me emotional harm.
As you said, it's a sticky matter and well worth the debate here.
AlanBJan 15, 2013
JoHarringtonDec 29, 2012
I detest all that WBC stand for, but if I want Freedom of Speech, then they have to have it too. I just wish that they would shut up.
Before we can even discuss how to enforce responsibility, we have to determine what we mean by responsible Freedom of Speech. I know many fox hunting groups who want me to shut up too. Ditto human rights abusers. We're all going to have a different idea of what constitutes the right to speech, as soon as we draw such lines in the sand.
kateDec 28, 2012
JoHarringtonDec 21, 2012
But I'm of the opinion that arguments and views, which aren't good, die more quickly in the spotlight than in the shadows. There's too much mystery attached to those being silenced.
I recall once picking up my nephews for a visit to my house. It was voting day, so I commented, "If you don't mind, I need to nip to the voting booth on the way up." My youngest nephew, who was about 13-14 at the time, responded, "Ok, but only if you vote BNP."
I nearly had a heart-attack on the spot!
It did turn out that he was trolling me, but his reasoning was sound. He'd heard so much about the other parties, but whenever the BNP was mentioned, it was all 'they're bad' and no further information. He found himself curious, because they alone weren't afforded television time. No newspaper reported them. The adults around him just wrinkled up their noses and dismissed them as a hate group. He was being told to hate a party of which he knew nothing.
Should people have the right to demand the deaths of others? Absolutely not. But they should be arrested under intent to kill laws, rather than freedom of speech/hate speech laws.
SamDec 20, 2012
JoHarringtonDec 20, 2012
RagtimelilDec 20, 2012
JoHarringtonDec 20, 2012
JoHarringtonDec 20, 2012
The way that WBC have gone about it is very clever from a publicity point of view. They do only target places and times which will cause the most outrage. That will get them onto the news, out of sheer indignation.
However I'm getting early reports from Anonymous that those funerals in Connecticut may have been a step too far. WBC haven't left their hotel rooms. I have unconfirmed reports that they've cancelled their picket.
And I agree with you that the key to counter-acting them isn't to focus on their message (Margie Phelps is even now thanking Anonymous for being WBC's chief spokespeople in getting said message out), but to focus on the rest of us.
SamDec 20, 2012
Also the US is one of the few countries that doesn't have any hate speech laws, protecting those that speak, but leaving those that are spoken about without protection. A group like WBC would be in prison for what they do in the majority, if not all, European countries.
JoHarringtonDec 20, 2012
I'm a Wiccan HIgh Priestess, as you know, and so I've had plenty of opportunities over the decades to have fundie Christians in my face. I've also had to counsel other Pagans for the same.
What I've always said to them is this: those people genuinely believe that you are going to Hell. They want to save you. It's the spiritual equivalent of seeing an on-coming car about to knock someone over, but you leaping in to push them to safety. In short, Pagan dears, thank them nicely, wish them a lovely day, move on.
Westboro Baptist Church appear to genuinely hold to their beliefs. I don't share them. I think that they're repulsive. But are they trying to save me? Are they doing this out of true care and consideration? (Or because, as defecting members have stated, the pastor is a child abuser, who brought them up in terror.) All these things have to be factored in.
You're in a slightly better position than me. You are a Christian, so you can categorically state that this isn't your religion as you recognize it. I'm on the outside looking in, thus having to be very diplomatic about it all.
The point about limiting where they can speak has been well made. The Phelps family are hot on checking with local law enforcement agencies as to the precise limits of where they may protest. Then they take it to the line, but never step over it. At least legally. Morally is a whole different ball-game.
As for publicity, or the lack thereof, that's an argument that I hear a lot. It does fit into my ethos of not feeding the trolls as well. But I'm not sure it's the right way in this case. Silence means approval. Publicity turns the hothouse of public opinion onto an issue. People can see what they're saying and apparently are turning against them en masse.
Plus, from my point of view, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have anti-gay issues linked with such a repellant group. It's setting up a situation where all anti-gay rhetoric can be similarly linked with them. 'Oh! You don't like gay marriage? You share your views with the Phelps family!'
Stop words waiting to happen.
SamDec 20, 2012