Free speech vs what’s PC
THROUGHOUT his life Voltaire was a tenacious defender of freedom of speech, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” are words he wrote and lived by.
“I Love Adolf Hitler,” are words that sparked a furore at Wits University when Mcebo Dlamini, president of the student representative council (SRC) decided to make them his Facebook status.
The controversy and indignation caused by Dlamini’s post resulted in swift disciplinary action from the university authorities and a subsequent removal of the SRC president from his seat.
Broadly, beyond Wits’ grounds, the issue has sparked a heated debate on whether there are limits to free speech.
As opposed to Dlamini, to many people in South Africa and around the world, Hitler’s name is synonymous with the Jewish holocaust and the devastation caused by his pursuit of World War II.
But like Voltaire, many of us are proponents of free speech, hence curbing Dlamini’s freedom of expression, however wellintentioned, is ill-advised and undemocratic. This is despite the Hitler statement being offensive, despicable and unnerving.
Our constitution saw fit to protect freedom of expression as an inviolable right. As such, Section 16 of chapter two in the Bill of Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes (a) freedom of the press and other media; (b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;.. (d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.”
Of course, these rights do not extend to: “propaganda for war, incitement to imminent violence, or advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”.
As horrible as Dlamini’s choice of his status may be, because he chose to confine the debate to his Facebook friends and immediate circle, the intention seems to have been to spark vigorous debate rather than incite violence and advocate hatred. Therefore, the fitting response should have been the facilitation of a robust, uninhibited, wide-open discussion with the view to ensuring that the truth is given ample chance to defend itself against any mistaken notions, errors and misconceptions.
The heavy-handed approach of the university administration however, seems incompatible with the aims and intentions of higher education. It also sends the wrong message from academia to larger society when in fact, institutions of higher learning should exhibit greater freedom of expression than exists in society at large.
Further, because intolerance feeds on ignorance, censorship – the stifling of debate – could in fact be a major contributor to intolerance. Higher education should instead equip pupils with the necessary tools to demystify language, thereby removing its ability to demean, debase and stigmatise.
The answer to bigoted speech is a better, rational, reasoned argument – which usually brings enlightenment to all and sundry. It is inadvisable to sacrifice the great value of education to a knee-jerk effort aimed at discouraging prejudice and appeasing certain stakeholders. If our apartheid past is anything to go by, the powers that-be cannot be the determiner of truth and of what is and isn’t.
John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher and credible voice of liberalism, cautions us: “Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
“There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.”