نظر نویسنده

Free Speech Debate’s first principle states:
We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers. (Emphasis mine.)

We have, admittedly, not given adequate thought to this particular addendum: “and able”. In many of our case studies, we use the “frontiers” to signify national or digital boundaries. In the case of Braille, “able” can be defined narrowly – and the “frontiers” of access are decidedly physical.

Broadly speaking, access to Braille education is a free speech issue. Many who use Braille insist that the reading code is integral to their literacy and, by extension, their expressiveness. Canada has a responsibility to provide its visually-impaired citizens with the particular resources they need to communicate effectively.

This is not a new issue. As early as 1957, the US National Federation of the Blind was writing of the need to mobilise blind Americans to agitate for “free speech” rights. In 1985, a public debate kicked off in the US when Congress banned the publication of a Braille edition of Playboy.

On the other hand, critics may ask: won’t audio books do? This is where the issue gets complicated – and not just for the visually-impaired. Technology has increased the ways in which we can receive and impart information. Each individual is apt to find some methods more useful than others. This begs the question: to preserve free expression, must we safeguard each of these communication means? Might cutting of funding for traditional book-sharing facilities, for instance, be considered a strike against those who are not digitally-savvy?

A consideration of this word “able” is particularly pressing as it pertains to those with disabilities. In this case, the issue of “able” thrusts arguments about educational pedagogy into the more politicised realm of “free speech.”

- کیت آنگلهارت