There is a theory that the more democratic a country, the more self-repressive it will become in curtailing freedom of speech. In a totalitarian environment, any dissent from the given standards can simply be clubbed out. There is therefore no great fluctuation between opposing views in ‘the masses’, as they are all under one giant thumb.
In more democratic environments there is no such physical unifying force. This leads to the populace at large coming into contact with views and beliefs alien to their own. Which in turn leads to indignation, objection, even violence.
As a self-curbing mechanism, parameters and boundaries are set. ‘You’re allowed to say this, but not that – otherwise you can’t play with us, moreover we might hit you.’ The media play an absolutely vital role in setting the most current standards of what thoughts are fashionable in which circles; and they make sure the circles are few in number. Not having a clear ideology-genre will lose followers and readership.
Under these circumstances, it’s necessary to consider where we are going before leaping into bed with the idea of outlawing any particular ideology. It may seem like a good idea to ban posters of skinny, skimpily clad models from the London Underground on the grounds that they pressure women into impossible body-image ideals. But are we then going to ban the human form in every shape? Is it Ok to have a picture of a fat, older person? How about men? Why should skinny young women be singled out to be discriminated against? Infinite numbers of artists have more than adequately shown that the human form in pretty much any stage of life or shape can be rendered beautiful by the treatment of the subject – that is, after all, the essence of advertising. If we’re entirely honest, if we take the argument to its logical conclusion, we’d ban all advertising. But this is not what’s being proposed. We’re merely singling out a victim.
Most countries have legal boundaries on what can and can’t be said. Some of the most obvious are laws against incitement to violence. This seems like generally a good idea, although it is ironic that while individuals are barred from inciting violence, governments are completely exempt, and are free to stir up hatred almost as part of their job description.
The role that insult and deliberate verbal and ideological offence plays in human society cannot be underestimated. Insult and intimidation have been part of our social tactical toolbox since prehistory. They play a role in both aggression and defence that is parallel to physical opposition. Verbal insult, satire and derision has particularly been utilized by those with less physical power to achieve ends without bloodshed.
Of course, just because we’ve always been prone to resorting to either physical violence or verbal intimidation does not mean that either is desirable. It is simply that they are intimately woven into our makeup. The disarming of either has necessarily to be done with extreme caution. Violence is bad – but does that mean we should stand stock still while someone else punches us? If verbal, pictorial, ideological or cultural abuse with ‘good cause’ is allowed, who decides what the good cause is?
Again, the problems with verbal and physical battles are similar. Perhaps a sharp and timely rebuke might stop further potential damage, as much as a well-executed physical act of aggression might prevent larger bloodshed at least in the short term. But when political campaigning turns into nothing but mudslinging and misdirection until voters have no clear information to base their decisions on, the usefulness of the insult has obviously long since gone as far as the good of the country is concerned. Likewise, to quote Calvin and Hobbes, ‘Dad, how do soldiers killing each other solve the world’s problems?’
Perhaps the most expedient answer is, forbearance. Forbear from both types of violence – even though they are in reach. Do not legislate against them. Legislate against wilful acts of violence, deception, incitement. But do not curb every offensive available to people. Such a tactic is hyperbolic, and in its own overarching dogma swallows its own tail like the Midgard Serpent; for is it not a type of insult in itself to decree certain types of slurs acceptable and others not? In pedagogical circles, we understand quite clearly that the maximum gain in self-control is attained not through excessive parental control and direction, but through allowing maximum freedom while keeping the child within acceptable bounds. We present positive behavioural models and encouragement and praise as often as possible. We don’t change much as we grow older. Society will surely never develop into anything more graceful unless given some credit for being able to control itself.