Sebastian Huempfer认为，“言论自由大讨论”的十大原则草案有益于那些权贵。
我们的原则四指出，“‘应以开放和文明的态度讨论人与人之间的差异”，后来我们又补充说， “这句话如果由主流、有钱、有权的人说出来当然比较轻松”。我想这也适用于其他原则: 大多数原则有益于那些权贵。我认为我们必须首先解决这种不平衡。
伊 尔沙德曼吉（Irshad Manji）告诉我们：“冒犯是真正多元化的代价”。 但是，世界无论从整体来看，还是从每个社会来看都不只是“多元化”的，而是不平等和不公正的。我们不应该忽视这种重要的差异, 因为虽然多元化有助于言论自由，不平等却会破坏言论自由，并带来诸如冒犯一类的问题。真正意义上的冒犯是一个共同体深层问题的症状, 是不公正的结果，而不是多元化所造成的。我们的许多原则草案没有考虑到这个问题。
即将离任的BBC董事马克·汤普森，（Mark Thompson）说：“以自由表达为名所做的事情可能使受众感到威胁和孤立….如果他们已经属于感到被孤立和受歧视的群体….这些人很可能把对他们的宗 教的攻击视为另一种形式的种族主义。” 当有权势的人感到安全和自信，而弱势群体感到被排除在外时，那么对有些人而言，我们的原则草案所勾画出的言论自由有解放和增强的效果，而对其他人 而言，往好了说是毫无意义，往差了说就是侮辱和伤害。
对那些已有的人，还需要给予更多吗？
有几条原则——开放、多元化的媒体，跨越国界的沟通——忽视了在现实中，我们不是一样的。因为每个人都可以发言，就加订那些需要或值得别人倾听的声音一定能被听到，这是错误的想法。昨天最有影响力的的声音在今天仍然是响亮的，没有哪种新技或者社交媒体能够改变这一点。
“真 正的多元化”并不是开放的媒体和通讯渠道的必然产物，因为我们在进入这些新的、开放的空间时身份并没有改变：有权者还是有权者，无权者还是无权者；同样， 自信与不安全、富裕与贫穷、知情与无知、容易被冒犯与不易被冒犯，这些差异还是存在的。即使竞技的平台是公平的，打了兴奋剂的运动员依然会取胜。新的、更 开放的言论和表达渠道有时可能会削弱人们在社会地位上的差异，但更可能出现的情况是，心基础产生前的旧规则和准则依然有效。
因此，有了多个电视频道也不足以保证人们能听到真相：即使2003年有Press TV，我还是会相信Colin Powell编造出来的故事；毕竟，就算是在伊朗支持的电台中，他再怎么说也是美国的国务卿。
这就是为什么开放、有参与性的传播新闻和信息的技术不是灵丹妙药：阅读Mail Online的读者比其他新闻网站的读者都多。这家小报的老板已经建立了线下的媒体帝国，现在则又建立了线上的媒体帝国。
这 也解释了为什么公民新闻有着精英新闻的偏向性：1亿Facebook用户转发Kony 2012，使Joseph Kony成了世界知名的人物，可是却没有人人发表或关心下令围攻麦纳麦医院的酋长。我们总是忽略一些地方的暴政与滔天罪行，对其他地方的问题则采取简单化 和居高临下的立场。确实，上面说的1亿用户都可以访问乌干达的博客来了解Joseph Kony的复杂历史，但99.9％的人都没有走出车额外的一步。
因 此，如果我们要跨越一切边界采用开放式和参与式的媒体进行沟通，我们就不能自欺欺人地相信“真正的多元化”，也就是在平等的人之具有建设性的对话和多远的 声音，会在原来不存在的情况下突然奇迹般的出现。那些怀疑者、异议者和受压迫者现在有了前所未有的机会和准入，但除非人们集体做出努力，倾听辩论各方的声 音，并使事实的各个方面都有机会被听到，守则我们依然只能读到、听到、看到或者转发一种版本的故事。21世纪的媒体和我们的讨论可能看起来等多元化，但其 实它反映的依然是我们生活的现实情况，这近况中最基本的一点就是人们的权力并不平等。只是给每个人更多的机会发言不会改变这种不平衡。
不能用一种标准衡量一切?
其 他几条原则——文明、非暴力、不要被冒犯、没有禁忌——可能只会加剧这种不公正的现状。有人会认为文明是一个狭窄的和客观的概念：如果我们每个人都从坦率 和公开的辩论中收益，而且我们都让他人把话说完，也容忍那些针对我们信仰的神或者先知的笑话，那么世界将得更好，是吗？
但是，我们的原则草案中设定的这些限制只能限制那么些已经在挣扎中的人：那些在社会中处于优势的人不会真正感到受冒犯、也没有必要发表暴力言论、不需要大喊、说脏话、写作令人不安的歌词或制作此类音乐录影带。他们喜欢文明，因为文明正是他们所定义的。
由 于文明远不是一个含义明确的概念，因此在不同的历史时代中，女性为自身利益发声，或者农奴反对封建领主都被认为是不文明的。显然，这不是我们想要的文明， 但它仍然是某些人眼中的文明。文明的概念已经走过了很长的路，它是否是完美的呢？文明的规则总是由某些人制定，为一些人服务的。许多人要说的话如果必须使 用恰当、礼貌的英语去表达出来，就完全失去了其内在力量。
那么 如果从来没有人违反今天的文明规则呢？如果每个人都耐心重申自己的观点，希望真相能够压倒谎言，最终会怎样？如果人们在受到冒犯的时候都不发声，或者在需 要忘掉文明的时候不去呐喊、咒骂、挥拳或者采取一切必要的措施呢？或许那些以文明反抗不公正的人最终能够实现正义，或许这正是最勇敢、最坚强的人选择的道 路。确实，曼德拉和甘地这些人类历史中最伟大的人物坚持了文明，但不是每个人都能做到这一点，因为不是每个人都对上苍最终惩恶扬善的公义抱有不屈的信念。 因此不能要求人人都做到这一点。
假设性的保险原则
这里的十大原则草案给一些人带来的益处远远大于它给另一些人带来的益处。言论自由并不是越多越好。如果我们不知道我们的声音有多响亮，就不能让每个人都拥有无限的言论自由。我们应当要求人人都有责任尊重他人，真正地聆听他人，并对讨论的各方都保持开放的心态。
reply report Report comment
The more I familiarise myself with the site, the more I am convinced that the notion of free speech cannot be separated from the broader idea of human rights and individualism. The ten principles of free speech make sense only in this context.
Unfortunately, no background for the principles has been described or even mentioned anywhere on your web pages. In the absence of such a framework all interpretations are likely to be correct and anything could be proved. In my opinion, presenting a list of rules without providing a framework within which these rules could be interpreted and applied coherently is not enough.
Even worse, the link inviting readers to challenge premises of the forum was buried deep inside the text and the whole issue relegated to the back pages no one ever visits.
wesraja
reply report Report comment
Many thanks for your comment. If you click through each of the principles, you will find an explanation for each. For example, the explanation to P1 can be found here: http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-1/the-basic-principle/. There’s also a link to challenge the project on the homepage. I hope this helps!
reply report Report comment
“WE” COMES BEFORE “I”
Hi sebastianhuempfer,
Thank you for the reply. I will use Rev. Fraser’s article in the Guardian1 as an example of the issues I regard important. Consider the following passage:
“…one of the most familiar modern mistakes about faith is that it is something that goes on in your head. This is rubbish. Faith is about being a part of something wider than oneself. We are not born as mini rational agents in waiting, not fully formed as moral beings until we have the ability to think and choose for ourselves. We are born into a network of relationships that provide us with a cultural background against which things come to make sense. “We” comes before “I”. We constitutes our horizon of significance…”
It is easy to notice that Rev. Giles Fraser does not really argue against the interpretation of faith, but against privileging the individual rather than the social group in matters involving faith. The two phenomena have different scales but they are part of the same process. Even the reverent himself would not deny that beliefs are mental processes taking place inside the head, and that faith is a social process involving many individuals with heads on their shoulders.
It is then reasonable to say that Rev. Giles Fraser disagree with the court decision because he has an interest in privileging social aspects (he says: Faith is about being a part of something wider than oneself), and the so called liberals privilege individuality (that is, the absolute priority of personal autonomy and individual choice). Rev. Giles Fraser conveniently overlooks the fact that the constitutional protection of individual rights was introduced in Germany to protect minorities from the kind of atrocities he writes about, irrespective of who commits them, and in what name they are committed.
The argument made by Rev. Giles Fraser has a disturbing undertone to it. His statement that “We are not born as mini rational agents in waiting, not fully formed as moral beings until we have the ability to think and choose for ourselves. We are born into a network of relationships that provide us with a cultural background against which things come to make sense” makes me very worried because it could be interpreted that those of us who do not have Faith are not only retarded but also immoral and antisocial (not to mention being condemned to hell). You might say that I am oversensitive and read too much into the statement. It would be the case if it was an isolated statement, but, unfortunately, it is not.
I agree with Rev. Giles Fraser, though, when he says: “We are born into a network of relationships that provide us with a cultural background against which things come to make sense.”We” comes before “I”. There can be no doubt that we all are born into some or other cultural group, which illustrates how difficult it is to grow up as an independent individual. From the moment we are born until we die we are indoctrinated by others about morality, obedience, and loyalty to a specific tribe, nation, class, gender or religion. At no stage we are taught how to be “self” in a responsible way. Neither our parents (perhaps with a few exceptions) nor educational system helps us to discover who we are and what it takes to be an individual. On the contrary, we are told that individuality really means selfishness which effectively discourages us from engaging in any such behaviour.
Then it should come as no surprise that democracies based on individualism have never flourished for long. The Age of Enlightenment was quickly superseded by Romanticism which led to the rapid growth of nationalism which dispensed with individualism in favour of citizenship, and religious morality with civic duty, and piety with cultural loyalty to the tribe. The wars for national and tribal independence rolled out throughout Europe as a result. The long period of conflict between nations (as usual, at the expense of their citizens) lasted until 1945 to give way to a brief period during which an attempt was made to redefine the notion of individuality: in the west as social liberalism and in the east as communism. It failed in both cases, most likely because the conception of individual they used was defined entirely in opposition to the membership of the group.
In my opinion, the ambitious program of Enlightenment never had a chance to survive in its original libertarian form. But this does not mean that it should be willingly abandoned. So far there is nothing better to replace it with (and perhaps never will be), as multiculturalism so venerated in many circles today is not really a social system but a product of the post imperialist era. You are right – individualism (and rationality) in its current libertarian form is not a very alluring option to many people. If the intellectuals of Europe want individualism to survive into the next century they have to put some thought into its redefinition. There is a lot more at stake than just free speech.
There is one thing that Rev. Giles Fraser overlooked in his article. The only reason so many cultures can coexist on the continent of Europe today is the very individualism he tries to undermine. The tension between social groups (e.g. churches, ethnic groups) and individualism has existed ever since rights of individuals were put before rights of groups as a result of the Enlightenment. Replacing liberal democracy with one based on any particular culture or even multiculturalism is likely to destroy in the long run the very aspect which made Europe so attractive to so many newcomers.
There is another issue I strongly disagree with Rev. Giles Fraser. It is simply not true that “… Liberalism constitutes the view from nowhere. Liberalism has no sense of history”. On the contrary, it is religion that has no sense of history – the stories in the Bible were frozen two-or-so-thousand years ago.
There are many reasons why we have been living from conflict to conflict in modern history, and we have to find them all. One cannot get such answers from old texts or from people with vested interest, however. The future of the world lies with those individuals who are able to transcend specific culture in search for what we all have in common instead of what makes us different.
1. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/17/german-circumcision-affront-jewish-muslim-identity
reply report Report comment
The current discussion of free speech is a clear sign of confusion. The freedom of expression cannot be the goal in itself – the free speech is and always has been an integral part of individualism. Let me remind the reader, that all of us are born as individuals who only later in life become members of some group.
The current problems have arisen from the hasty and misguided rejection of individualism. Today, the prevailing view is that all individuals have to be part of some or other cultural group to acquire identity and belong to a religious group to have any morality. This gives enormous power over individuals to various social organisations from religious sects and movements to tribal and national hordes. These social groupings are seen not only as desirable but also innocent – the common belief is that social groups benefit its members who always retain control over group’s behaviour. If this were the case, however, we would have no social conflicts, no bloodshed, and no wars. The history demonstrates quite convincingly that social behaviour has its own collective dynamics which is impossible to manage. It is for this reason I believe that the main role of government should be protection of civil rights of its citizens – just the way it was once done after the World War II. Do we need another world conflict to remind us about this imperative?
Wars are waged not by individuals but by groups to advance their social expansion. Various cultural, tribal, national, religious and political organisations fight their dirty wars by proxy using own members. In this forum we should therefore differentiate between those who are prepared to coexist with others as individuals, and those ones who act as door-to-door agents of their cultural groups.
At the heart of current problems is not the issue of free speech. The real concern is that we somehow convinced ourselves to forgo our heritage of Renascence and Enlightenment and with it the memory of what really matters in life – the human individuality and reason.
reply report Report comment
Thank you for your comment – although I disagree with you, I think you make a compelling case and an interesting point.
Here’s a counterargument, and it’d be great to hear your opinion on it:
“We are not born as mini rational agents in waiting […] We are born into a network of relationships that provide us with a cultural background against which things come to make sense. “We” comes before “I”. We constitutes our horizon of significance.”*
I think this is true especially for people who are conscious of their cultural background because they are constantly reminded of it. And I find it problematic to tell them, just endorse individualism and rationality and all will be fine.
[*Rev. Giles Fraser for the Guardian’s Comment is Free http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/17/german-circumcision-affront-jewish-muslim-identity%5D
reply report Report comment
I believe without freedom of speech it is impossible for a country to advance..Even more to this, it is impossible for the world to advance since nowadays our voice is heard worldwide due to social media networks and global networking connections which has made the world connected. However as we tend to see what has been taking place in the middle east for the past 2 years now, after the different revolutions happening in 2 different countries and the 3rd one on its way, i have to disagree with you lates comment Mr sebastien Huempfer. First of all if you call freedom of speech “meaningless” then we will never be able to advance in this world and will live miserable lives and it will get worse and worse each year since we all know that the minority which control us, will only be brought down or heard through freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the only political weapon which 2nd class citizens as you call it, i would better name is anarchists, hold this freedom to right for there rights and justice. It is a fact that we have no power however if we do not struggle to shout out and fight for what we believe in than we are only going backwards in our standards of living. To overcome this opression and extreme inequality around us, we MUST have freedom of speech so that we can express fully what we feel and trigger others who are helpless to join and create on big community to fight for our justice and overthrow this unjust regime which we live in.