by Lucius Trae

Created on: October 11, 2010

Democratic societies are founded on a variety of principles, one of which advocates the maximization of individual freedom. Freedom is restricted, however, in cases that it is deemed necessary to do so. The clearest cases are those involving violence towards others; no one has the freedom to violently harm innocent people, for example. If harm is a reason to consider restricting human freedom, many people have thought "offense" should fall under the category of a legitimate freedom.

As philosophers like John Stuart Mill have pointed out, this is a problematic view. It is necessary that society promote tolerance towards the thoughts and activities of others. If someone decides to burn a flag, for instance, they might be making a political statement. Is it necessary to desecrate a flag? Probably not, but that is coming from someone who doesn't engage in such activities. Those who do may feel it is necessary to be offensive in order to be noticed and heard; they may be wrong, but we can't always be certain that's the case.

Most people wouldn't be harmed if some laws were established against offense. The burning of flags, religious texts, desecration of sacred objects, etc. These are all examples of things people hold in high regard - though not all people. In many cases, people seem to offend people for no reason. The majority of people engaging in these "shock" tactics are doing it for money, and they'll often be open about that. Someone might argue that offending people is typically done for juvenille reasons.

While that may be true, it's also true that society changes over time. As history shows us, people have introduced controversial ideas that were met with social criticism. When these ideas were able to spread throughout a given society, people worked towards bringing about positive changes. The civil rights movement could be considered such an example. However, the freedom to offend people also applied to organizations like the KKK, which have had a considerably high presence at various historical moments. Given that democracies tend to produce decisions favored by the average person, there will inevitably be a problem. There is no means for people to distinguish between outdated beliefs and brilliant ideas with certainty. People may censor a brilliant mind because the person says things people find offensive that are nonetheless true. Even the intellectual "elite," if it exists, makes mistakes. Part of accepting offensive behavior is recognizing one's own fallibility.

America is a staunch supporter of freedom of speech. In fact, it's arguable that America ensures more freedom of speech than the average democratic society. This isn't because America is more advanced, necessarily. A variety of European countries, for instance, have laws against hate speech (Canada does as well). Some countries have made Holocaust denial illegal. That seems reasonable, perhaps, but the supporter of "the right to offend" is wary of setting a precedent. What criteria can be used to ensure only bad or false ideas are censored? And even if such a criteria is found, is it justified to censor others? That is another debate entirely, though it generally fails to engage interest since the "criteria" in question isn't sufficiently established within law.

Learn more about this author, Lucius Trae.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.