Free speech is not an end in and of itself but a means to an end. We should be concerned at the way our elected politicians use their platforms to gratuitously insult weaker members of society.
American President Barack Obama was known as a smooth-talking, mild-mannered, dignified politician. His humour and politeness were endearing to millions of people, even if many of his acts as president were not. The way in which his successor, Donald Trump, speaks however, is in direct contradiction. From the very beginning of his Presidential campaign, when he called Mexicans ‘rapists’ and ‘drug dealers,’ to the present day, his language is such that he would have been fired from any other job. It seemed, ironically, that the only position his vulgarity allowed him to hold was that of President of the United States.
A recent Washington Post article detailed some of the ill-effects that President Trump’s words have had upon the society he governed. Because of his ‘no-filter’ approach to both speaking and tweeting, Trump has empowered numerous people to follow in his footsteps and insult or abuse others. Shockingly and tragically, his rhetoric has resulted in school bullies mimicking the former President’s insults and the cruel tone in which he delivers them. In one incident in New Jersey, a 12-year-old Mexican-American boy was told by his schoolmate that “all Mexicans should go back behind the wall.” A day later, on 19 June 2019, the bullying turned physical, with the perpetrator punching his Mexican-American schoolmate and beating his mother unconscious. The family’s attorney, Daniel Santiago, argued that, “When the President goes on TV and is saying things like ‘Mexicans are rapists, Mexicans are criminals’ — these children don’t have the cognitive ability to say, ‘He’s just playing the role of a politician.’ The language that he’s using matters.”
A similar trend has emerged in the United Kingdom over recent years. When an article by Boris Johnson was published in the Daily Telegraph, in which he compared Muslim women who wear a burka to ‘letterboxes’ and ‘bank-robbers,’ Islamophobic incidents rose by 375% in the space of a week. His words were repeated by racists, who abused Muslims both on the street and on social media. According to one report, 42% of offline Islamophobic incidents over the subsequent three weeks “directly referenced Boris Johnson and/or his language used in his column.”
While defenders of politicians such as Trump and Johnson would regard their comments simply as ‘free speech,’ the reality is something else. Though we all have a legal right to say most things; for a multicultural society to flourish in a globalised world, sometimes compromise is required. Every kind of speech is not morally acceptable, even though it may be legally so. Speech which threatens the very peace of society constitutes an abuse of the freedoms which generations before us have fought for.
Much of the media also play a role in fracturing peace under the guise of “free speech.” For example, some news outlets, rather than engaging in genuinely useful discussion, regularly invite Muslim hate preachers onto their airwaves. Anjem Choudary, founder of the now banned group Al-Muhajiroun, rose from anonymity, becoming an almost household name purely as a result of his regular media appearances. He appeared on BBC News, BBC Newsnight, Radio 4’s Today programme, Channel 4, GMTV, CNN, Fox News and CBS news, as well as being quoted regularly in newspapers. This was despite the fact that he had no credentials and a small following. Muslims all over the world despaired at the platform that he was being given. A Guardian editorial rightly pointed out that, “His message spread not via pulpits in places of worship, but from the studios of the BBC.” In 2016, Choudary was finally convicted for supporting so-called “Islamic State” and sentenced to five years imprisonment.
Choudary caused controversy with his words, leading to extensive public attention and increased ratings for news outlets and online media platforms. While this would have benefitted those outlets, for much of society it did nothing but cause fragmentation, escalating mistrust and a damaging sense of fear. Choudary was entitled to free speech but thrusting it upon an entire population surely constituted an abuse on the part of those outlets that provided him such extensive airtime.
Free speech is not an end in and of itself. Rather it is a means to an end. The end that each of us should be striving for is a society free from prejudice, discrimination and hatred. The more we elect politicians who use their platform to gratuitously insult others, the less likely our goal for a peaceful society can be achieved. Both the media and our political class have a duty, first and foremost, to defend the weakest and most vulnerable. They should not use their platform to enable and empower racists to speak their mind. If the powerful among us abuse free speech, which they are currently doing, then those weak members of our communities being targeted will face abuse.
If curbing free speech with a self-imposed filter can lead to societal harmony, then that is a small price worth paying.
A Ahmed
9 February 2021 at 12:14 pm
Really well said, thank you!