As part of today’s blog carnival for International Academic Freedom Day, HRinI is delighted to welcome Prof. Dennis Hayes from the University of Derby. Dennis is a Professor of Education and the founder of Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF) www.afaf.org.uk

In the introduction to On Liberty John Stuart Mill defends ‘absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological’ (1859 [1991]: 16).  This was a commonplace of liberal politics until the present time when we constantly hear from academics that there is no such thing as ‘absolute’ freedom of speech; when leaders of trade unions and political parties argue that freedom of speech must be weighed against other values, and when even campaigning organisations such as Liberty ask us to note that all societies restrict freedom of speech. Defenders of the liberal approach to freedom of speech are now held to be putting social cohesion, or vulnerable groups and individuals, at risk.   

On International Academic Freedom Day 2010, I want to briefly state the case for absolute freedom of speech.  Mill in his chapter ‘Of the liberty of thought and discussion’ puts the most important argument for absolute freedom of expression very clearly:

…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clear perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by its collision with error. (1859 [1991]: 21 my italics)

Mill is not engaging in rhetoric when he says that silencing an opinion is ‘robbing the human race.’  He is pointing out that free speech is a foundational freedom; the freedom on which all others rest. If we cannot hear what others think not only can we not judge their opinions, we cannot form a proper understanding for ourselves of any topic. Free speech is not primarily about those who speak but about those who listen to speech. The argument for absolute freedom of speech assumes that those who listen and, therefore, engage with speech are capable of making up their own minds. In other words it assumes that they are human beings.

If, as is popular today, we say that some things must not be said because some groups will find what they hear ‘offensive,’ we are assuming that they are diminished human beings who must be protected by their superiors. Shamefully, the arguments that assume a diminished and vulnerable set of listeners are often addressed to people from black and ethnic minority groups, women and, increasingly, to the white working class. Isn’t there more than a whiff of what I would call ‘caring contempt’ for people’s abilities here?

While it is hard to find defenders of free speech, there are defenders of those on the ‘left’ and sometimes of those on the ‘right,’ whose free speech has been curtailed, who are threatened, disciplined or punished. The plight of victims of persecution around the world is a subject of campaigning by various groups.

In a victim culture, in which the majority of people are seen as vulnerable, defending victims takes on more importance than previously. This is not to say we should not lead or support these campaigns. Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF) defends those whose free speech is curtailed by anyone, anywhere, irrespective of the views they express.

Defending victims is, indeed, a major strength of civil liberties and human rights campaigning.  Where such campaigning is weak is that it is not framed within a defence of absolute freedom of speech. Once the defence of victims and the oppressed went hand in hand with the defence of absolute freedom of expression, but now they are seen as antagonistic.  We need to return to seeing them as complementary because the defence of absolute freedom of speech is the only way that we can fully acknowledge our humanity and begin to challenge the oppressors and censors at home and abroad and the notion they have that we are all in some way ‘diminished’ people who need to be told what to think by out betters.