Freedom of expression must include the licence to offend

Freedom of expression must include the licence to offend

07 Jun 2006

Nine months on from the 'Danish Cartoon' controversy, the panel discuss the limits of free speech - should it include the licence to offend ?

Kenan Malik argues that free speech must include the licence to offend because "the right to subject each others' fundamental beliefs to criticism is the bedrock of an open, democratic society". He believes that social change and progress must necessarily include offending other people's beliefs. In the case of the now infamous Danish Cartoons, not all Muslims were offended, but the voices of those who were not offended were silenced by the rush to censor. Lisa Appignanesi begins by reciting a list of literature and authors that have been banned in the past, and how this literature - including the Bible, The Qur’an, Milton's ‘Areopagitica’ - and authors - Joyce, Baudelaire, Bacon, Hemingway - have enriched our society and brought pleasure to millions of people. She argues that even banning offence to, for instance, minorities, is a slippery slope towards an authoritarian state. She argues that criminal law should be about harm and threat, not sensitivity. Alain Finkielkraut explains that whilst freedom of expression can be painful to some, it is necessary for people to accept some offence in the interests of a free and open state. Freedom of expression must be about renouncing the absolutes of one’s own convictions and respecting the beliefs of others, he says, and in order for this to happen, it is inevitable that some people will feel offended.

David Cesarani counters Kenan Malik's argument by saying that freedom of expression is not an "absolute, abstract principle", and should not be universally applied. Freedom of speech can be considered a good, but not when it offends minorities or cuts across their rights. The power to offend, he says, is too often wielded by the powerful, to the detriment of the weak. Francesca Klug argues against the proposition from a legal standpoint, and suggests that we should draw a distinction between offence based on freedom of expression and offence based on denigration. She argues that we should have a legal right to offend, but not a complete licence to offend. Tariq Ramadan argues against the motion by drawing a distinction between the legal right to offend and the human responsibility to respect other people's sensitivities. He argues that, whilst it is legal to laugh at, for instance, the suffering of the Jews, it is not ethically right, and it is this kind of attitude that we need to address if different cultures are to peacefully coexist.

First Vote: 434 For, 84 Against, 191 Don’t Know

Final Vote: 534 For, 185 Against, 13 Don’t Know

BUY THE DVD