Iain Dale did a Total Politics interview with David Cameron. One of his questions was "How will you defend the right to offend?" Cameron replies:
This goes back to the 'do you listen' question because on the one hand you don't want someone inciting hatred of gays but on the other hand you want to live in a society where people don't feel their free speech is restricted if it is about humour. So there is a balance. We all rage against political correctness and there's lots of political correctness which is ridiculous- silly health and safety worries that stop children grazing a knee on an outward bounds adventure. We have got to get rid of that. But there's one bit of political correctness which is terribly important and that's about politeness. I have a disabled son and I don't want people to call him a spastic. You are a gay man, you don't want someone to call you a poof. If you have a black friend, you don't want someone to call them something offensive. It's about manners and I think what we've got to do is frame this debate in a sense of what is good manners and politeness and what is common sense.
This quote indicates what is to me a very disturbing notion of "free speech". First, Mr Cameron does not in any way attempt to distinguish between what should be circumscribed by convention or manners and what should be circumscribed by law. And since we live in a society in which "inciting hatred" of various forms - even non-violent hatred - is illegal, I consider it very important that our leadership should emphasize the distinction between what should be circumscribed by convention or manners and what circumscribed by law. Second, Mr Cameron says "on the other hand you want to live in a society where people don't feel their free speech is restricted if it is about humour".
Freedom of speech is not, repeat not primarily a matter of avoiding the unnecessary curtailing of humour, and I find it rather extraordinary that a Conservative should suggest that it is. The key importance of freedom of speech - indeed of all liberal tolerance of non-conformism of all sorts - arises from a form of humility. Although I believe that what I think is correct, I accept that I am likely to be mistaken in a number of ways. If I believed that I knew what was best in every regard and certain that I could not be mistaken, there would be a strong argument for me to impose what I know to be true on everyone else - what fundamental merit could there be in indulging their Error? But because I accept I might be wrong in some ways, it is very valuable to me if I am exposed to other ways of thinking about and talking of and doing things - I can thereby learn and potentially move closer to the Truth, both by identifying my own errors and also by understanding better those matters in which I am not exactly wrong but my ways of doing things are a matter of taste and convention rather than objective requirement.
The secondary importance of liberty is as a matter of practicality. Human nature and belief are so diverse that it is very difficult to impose uniform order without exercising very expensive control mechanisms - and even these might not survive long. Thus a liberal society is also, typically, a more stable society over the long term.
There is some merit in a society in which we can laugh at ourselves and permit others to laugh at us. It helps to give us a sense of perspective, reduces pomposity, reminds us that we are mortal, and so on. But this value is well down the list after the two I have emphasized.
The freedom of people to be rude to each other - not out of any sense of humour, but just because they choose not to abide by social conventions that others of us prefer - should be an important freedom to be protected under law. If I want to say unpleasant things about fat people, or those of religions that I disapprove of or even of my own religion, about people whose sexual practices I don't agree with or consider worthy of mockery, about political aspirations and systems that everyone but me thinks are good, or pretty much anything else that is offensive (even hate-inciting), then I may well be rude and unpleasant and you don't have to invite me to dinner, but provided that I do not incite violence I should not merely be permitted to do this but my right to do it should be protected and enforced under law (e.g. other people should not be able to stop me from doing it). That is a part of freedom of speech.
Of course, it does not follow from this that we should have no conventions or manners. It would obviously be very rude for someone to call Cameron's son a spastic and I would not think much of someone that did so. Indeed, it is only the presence of conventions and manners that gives rise to the issue of freedom of speech - it is only the fact that we have conventions that allows some people to say unconventional things! So of course if Cameron thinks he wants to act as some kind of etiquette leader for society as a whole (and why shouldn't he?) or to impose etiquette requirements upon his club (insofar as the Conservative Party is properly to be regarded as its leader's club - and that's another debate) then he can offer his view as to what is and is not good manners.
The question of good manners is not the issue of freedom of speech. It is no part of freedom of speech that we suddenly consider it polite to call people poofs or spastics or wogs. On the other hand, it would be part of freedom of speech that someone might argue that it ought to be considered polite to refer to people by these terms (how could manners evolve if we never debated what they should be?). And it would be part of freedom of speech that someone should be allowed, legally, to call people poofs or spastics or wogs when they were not attempting to be polite (not even by adhering to their own alternative standard of politeness).
But much more fundamental than this is the right to cause offence by arguing that Christianity is a religion of the weak, or that all religion is intended to facilitate the oppression of the masses by the ruling class, or that Islam is a religion of violence not of peace, or that (racial) Jews tend to be aggressive, or that pink-skinned footballers perform worse in the summer heat, or that adulterers should be imprisoned, or that fat people have only themselves to blame, or that all Tories are selfish or corrupt, or that no-one should lift a finger to help our Sally after what she said to our Peter at cousin Alan's funeral, or...an infinite host of other offensive claims, some of which might be genuine truth-claims and others might be simply designed to provoke or incite hatred.
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be funny. It is the freedom not to conform.
