Is Freedom of Speech an Absolute or Relative Right?

[cho_pilo]

So, reading the newspapaer the other day I came upon an artcile which contained the following. Go ahead and read it carefully, if you will:

MANILA, Philippines—Slighted Filipino Catholics are furious over a “penis art” exhibition and they turned to the internet to assail the Cultural Center of the Philippines for fomenting “blasphemy” and “religious bigotry” by hosting the exhibit.

“Blasphemy!!!” wrote Antonio Recososa, reacting to the ‘Blasphemous’ Philippine art riles Catholics story published on INQUIRER.net.

One of the artworks, an installation piece by artist Mideo Cruz, shows a poster of the image of Jesus Christ with a penis-shaped ashtray glued to His face.

Derp Trollingderp commented: “The only thing I could say is… This is offensive and tasteless.”

“Pure rubbish, the artists who (made this) ’art’ is sick, mentally, morally, (never mind spiritually) and socially maladjusted,” said Max. “I think, the artist doesn’t believe in Christ as a divine being, and they have lots of fun poking jokes to the believers. @#$!&&^%(*&) you dirty, gutter artist.”

CCP president Emily Abrera defended the work on Wednesday, saying it was part of the artist’s duty to challenge prevailing beliefs.

“We see nothing wrong with it. It is part of our culture to question, to seek answers, to look behind the surface and try to dig out what our real values are,” she said.

Read More

I wanted to talk about it. Freedom of expression has been said to be the foundation of modern democracy. But…

If someone tells an artist to stop or remove blasphemous’ art because it offends Catholic … should the artist? Are you in favor of any kind of restrictions on expression?

Definition of Freedom of Expression:

Freedom to communicate ideas without restraint, whether orally or in print or by other means of communication.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated.

 

[Pug]

I am completely in favor of people restricting their expressions. I suppose I’d also like laws that do the same thing as well. I would love it if there was a law that stopped people from depositing all their trash (aka religious/political/whatever literature) in my bushes, on my lawn, dumped at the end of my driveway, and in my screen door. It makes the neighborhood look dirty with all the stuff blown around and caught in bushes.

Charity alone is sufficient to demand restriction of expression.

 

[jochoa]

Is freedom of speech an absolute or relative right?

If someone tells an artist to stop or remove blasphemous’ art because it offends Catholic … should the artist? Are you in favor of any kind of restrictions on expression?

Very interesting questions!
It is first absolute, then quickly followed by relative. It is absolute in that free will is absolute. However, most of the time, we submit ourselves to authority, and the authority will set limitations. Sometimes, we are forced to submit to authority, and the authority will set limitations.
The best practice is to fully submit ourselves to the Truth, gladly embrace the restrictions of patient and kind speech, and not need outside authority to enforce restriction.

What authority does the artist submit to? Does the artist want to spread the most peace, happiness, and energy? Does the artist want to spread strife, anger, and hatred? What does the artist want?

I am strongly in favor of restrictions on all expression, if the speaker is the one enforcing restriction as set by the Truth. I could be in favor of restrictions on public expression, if the government is the one enforcing and setting the restrictions, depending on the understanding of public and the restrictions set.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Relative right, I see no reason why people need the ability to preach heresy, racism or sexism

 

[John21652]

Relative right, I see no reason why people need the ability to preach heresy, racism or sexism

The right to free speech is a Natural Law absolute right. Like all absolute rights, it carries obligations which ensure it cannot conflict with other absolute rights, such as freedom from slavery, scandal and loss of reputation. Thus, the absolute right to free speech must be tempered by consideration for the rights of others. Our absolute right to freedom works in a similar fashion. Our absolute right to freedom must not restrict the freedom of others. Concepts such as heresy, racism and sexism are subjective interpretations of what is to be construed as harmful speech.

 

[sw85]

The natural law right to free speech is actually quite limited. It certainly does not encompass a right to blasphemy.

I for one am quite alright with censoring such obscenity.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

The right to free speech is a Natural Law absolute right. Like all absolute rights, it carries obligations which ensure it cannot conflict with other absolute rights, such as freedom from slavery, scandal and loss of reputation. Thus, the absolute right to free speech must be tempered by consideration for the rights of others. Our absolute right to freedom works in a similar fashion. Our absolute right to freedom must not restrict the freedom of others. Concepts such as heresy, racism and sexism are subjective interpretations of what is to be construed as harmful speech.

Which is why the Church had the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?

 

[wjp984]

In order to protect our own speech it is sometimes necessary to protect speech which we do not agree with.

It’s already an uphill battle sometimes to have the right to express our freedom of speech in regards to religion.

Unfortunately, if this kind of horrible speech is not also protected it will ultimately hurt good speech as well.

That being said, I believe that the best way to counter bad speech is to counter it with good speech. Restrictions just make things worse but education, boycotting, and other active strategies that don’t involve the use of a law restricting speech work a lot better.

 

[wjp984]

In order to protect our own speech it is sometimes necessary to protect speech which we do not agree with.

It’s already an uphill battle sometimes to have the right to express our freedom of speech in regards to religion.

Unfortunately, if this kind of horrible speech is not also protected it will ultimately hurt good speech as well.

That being said, I believe that the best way to counter bad speech is to counter it with good speech. Restrictions just make things worse but education, boycotting, and other active strategies that don’t involve the use of a law restricting speech work a lot better.

 

[sw85]

In order to protect our own speech it is sometimes necessary to protect speech which we do not agree with.

It’s already an uphill battle sometimes to have the right to express our freedom of speech in regards to religion.

Unfortunately, if this kind of horrible speech is not also protected it will ultimately hurt good speech as well.

That being said, I believe that the best way to counter bad speech is to counter it with good speech. Restrictions just make things worse but education, boycotting, and other active strategies that don’t involve the use of a law restricting speech work a lot better.

I simply don’t hew to that belief. What the free speech/noncensorship regime has revealed to us is exactly the same thing that the democratic/mob rule regime has: people will gravitate toward whatever gives them stuff / legitimates their pathologies / makes no demands of them. Hence utilitarianism has triumphed in the public sphere over natural law, despite the obvious truth of the latter and falseness of the former, because the former is easier and let’s people have lots of sex and whatnot.

Moreover, it’s getting harder and harder all the time for Christians to live Christian lives, and easier and easier for atheists to live degenerate lives, precisely because society’s moral consensus has collapsed. We are if anything living in a society that functionally censors Christians, and if you don’t believe me, pipe up in a sociology class at your l,ocal community college and say that premarital sex is wrong and see if anyone in that room ever speaks to you again.

The way I see it, either the Catholic Church is promoting truth or its promoting falsehoods. Free speech assumes that the answer here is unknowable. But if truth is knowable by man, than we in the Church are either preaching the truth or else are in thrall to grave error or else are deliberate liars. If we are preaching the truth then our truths ought to carry all the impetus society can attach to it; if we are in error, our errors ought to be suppressed so as not to corrupt society; and if we are liars, then we have no right to speak out at all.

 

[Pug]

I’m not sure if it would interest anyone here, but one place to read about things similar to free speech in the Catechism is in the section on “social communications media”. For your assistance, I offer one paragraph from that section:

**2495 **“It is necessary that all members of society meet the demands of justice and charity in this domain. They should help, through the means of social communication, in the formation and diffusion of sound public opinion.” Solidarity is a consequence of genuine and right communication and the free circulation of ideas that further knowledge and respect for others.