The complexities of censorship
Civitas, 13 December 2010
The last couple of days have witnessed three very different events that have led to calls for action to be taken against controversial individuals. The cases of Julian Assange, Frankie Boyle and Pastor Terry Jones share the common theme of censorship, and demonstrate the difficulty of deciding when censorship is justified.
For most people, and most fairly liberal governments, restricting free speech or freedom of information is not something that is taken lightly. However, few governments would support the principle of unrestricted freedom of speech. A common argument, voiced in a number of the cases given above, for restricting freedom of speech or freedom of information, is that material, information or views which could lead to people being harmed should be censored. This was the response of the Obama administration before the Wikileaks releases; State Department legal adviser Harold Koh stated that the releases ‘place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals’. Similar views have been aired since the ‘leaks’ have been released and for many people there is a real concern that people’s safety has been put at risk.
Similar concerns have been aired in relation to Pastor Terry Jones’ forthcoming visit to the UK. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, stated that the Pastor may be refused entry to the UK to address an English Defence League (EDL) rally on ‘national security grounds’. Perhaps given the Pastor’s previously inflammatory gestures and pronouncements it could be felt that allowing him to speak in the UK would endanger the country and British citizens, who may suffer reprisals in the form of terrorist attacks, or who may be hurt if violence breaks out at the EDL rally.
Finally, though perhaps of less relevance to national security, is the case of Frankie Boyle and his offensive comments about Katie Price’s disabled child. Many of the complaints received by Ofcom, who are now investigating whether his comments breached the broadcasting code on harmful and/or offensive material, undoubtedly argue that Frankie Boyle’s comments may create a harmful atmosphere where mocking those with serious disabilities is acceptable. This is another case in which the issue of ‘harm’ is deemed to be a good test for deciding whether censorship should be justified or whether those who break the rules of acceptable speech should be reprimanded.
The problem, however, that has vexed political theorists for centuries (if not longer), is how do we define what John Stuart Mill described as the ‘harm principle’. It is perhaps apparent that the extent of an individual’s freedom should end when that person’s freedom is directly impinging upon another person’s. For instance I should not be free to physically hurt you, furthermore I (in physically hurting you) know that my actions will harm you and so can expect them to be restricted. This perhaps applies to the first case outlined above – if Wikileaks, or the newspapers publishing the material, knows that it will directly endanger lives then there are good grounds for restricting their release. However, it is not easy to extend this idea to the second case (that of Terry Jones) because arguing that the harm principle extends to the indirect consequences of one’s actions reduces the importance of individual responsibility in the principle, and could make people overly responsible for the actions of others. As a result, as offensive as Mr Jones’ views are, he may not be deemed responsible for the actions of those who may react to them. If Pastor Terry Jones is permitted to address the EDL rally, the majority of British people would hopefully realise how ridiculous his views are. Finally, Frankie Boyle’s comments may be seen as abhorrent by some people, and undoubtedly are very offensive to those who object to them being justified by the ‘context’ of his comedy, however to restrict his freedom of speech, would extend the harm principle too far. Frankie Boyle’s comments have not directly limited anyone else’s freedom or directly caused physical harm to anyone, and I do not think one could argue that he is knowingly putting anyone at risk through his actions.
There are undoubtedly many cases where it is hard to draw the line between direct or indirect harm, or between offending people and harming them. Many political theorists and philosophers realise this and so debate about free speech will continue in the absence of any agreed set of rules. However, the politicians, who are often the ones who must decide where the line falls, should always draw on logical, and principled argument when making decisions that they must justify.