Freedom of Speech

Despite being quite bookish and working in a library there are many things I do not know.  For example, I still don’t know the meaning of life or why the sky is blue (I guess it is something to do with the molecular/atomic composition of the atmosphere, the gasses of which it comprises and so forth but please don’t quote me on it-I am a librarian, not a genius!).  Until this week I also didn’t know that a UK citizen could be arrested for posting a FaceBook message.  Yet, this is exactly what happened to 19 year old Azhar Ahmed from Dewsbury when he posted a rather vitriolic status about British soldiers and how they deserved to die and go to hell.  The judge presiding over the case called Ahmed’s comments “derogatory” and “inflammatory,” which, of course, they were.  Although Ahmed has been found guilty of sending a grossly offensive communication, he will not be sentenced until October the 9^th.

Ahmed defended his position by stating that the point of his comment was not to cause offence to anyone but to point out that, whilst the news broadcasts details of the deaths of military personnel, it does not even mention the deaths of ordinary Afghans as a result of this conflict.  At this juncture, I have to say that I can see his point.  I don’t think I have ever heard or seen a news report where it has given details of Afghan fatalities.  I have heard the odd implication that there has been “collateral damage” but nothing more in depth.  However, this imbalance is the fault of the British media and the government rather than the military personnel.  I think it always pays to remember who instigated this stupid war and it certainly wasn’t the people who are fighting on the front line.  If I remember rightly, it was the Bush administration in the US, backed by Tony Blair (minus the support of much of his cabinet, opposition members of parliament and the British people).  Military personnel were simply deployed to do a job, whether they agreed with the reason for their presence there or not.  From this point of view, I do find Ahmed’s comments very disrespectful, even if his intention behind making them was to balance out injustice.

Having said that, I do not believe that prosecution was the right thing to do.  I think it sets a dangerous president.  The thing is that everybody finds something offensive.  By the same token, I am sure we have all said something that somebody else could take offence at, whether it is a joke or a difference of opinion.  And both of these things should be allowed.  In fact, both of these things should be encouraged.  It is part of what makes human interaction so interesting and colourful.  If we start saying that we can’t say certain things on the off chance that certain people might get offended then where does that leave us?  Will it become the case that one’s points of view can only be aired if they conform to a set way of thinking?  If that is the case then freedom of expression ceases to be and we all morph into bland, passionless automatons, spouting the same stuff as every other member of society.  Those who dare to be different will end up being punished, simply for trying to be themselves.  Not only would this diminish individuality; it would also mean that the average person would be quite powerless to challenge injustice and inequality.  It would stifle our creativity and political imagination and we would cease to operate as a truly democratic nation.  This is not the kind of society I would like to live in.

Of course, I am not saying that we should simply accept opinions that we find odious without challenging them.  Of course they should be challenged but not in the court room and certainly not using conveniently ambiguously worded legislation (explain, definitively what constitutes an offensive communication).  Ahmed’s status, for example, was challenged by those who read it and were upset by it.  He subsequently took it down upon realising how hurtful it was for some people.  I guess the question is: how far does this have to go before we wake up and realise that our civil liberties are being eroded?  How far are we willing to let it go before we wake up, put our collective foot down and proclaim that, whatever our point of view, we all have a right to express it?  That is, after all, what freedom of speech is!