When does freedom of speech cross the line?

Clare Condon SGS

Clare Condon SGS

What speech should be free, and what speech has no place in a civilised democratic society, asks Good Samaritan Sister Clare Condon.

BY Clare Condon SGS*

It’s now over! Americans have voted and a new President will be installed in January 2017. Donald Trump was not the expected one. So is it all over, or are there more turbulent times ahead?

Millions of words have been written about this most divisive US presidential election campaign during the past 18 months. Why would anyone want to write another word? I cannot imagine another word of any consequence being written or spoken about this destructive and bitter campaign.

Yet something has been niggling at me, because here in Australia, we too are witnessing the rise of derogatory language in our media and public discourse which is often masked as “the right to free speech”. But I ask: what speech should be free, and what speech has no place in a civilised democratic society?

What do we make of the adversarial encounters, of personal vindictive attacks and counter-attacks that have been at the forefront of debates during the US presidential election? These attacks had no connection with policies or about leadership of the nation’s people.

What do we make of a similar push by some in Australian society who are arguing to place freedom of speech at the top of the national human rights agenda, especially by limiting the powers of section 18C of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act, 1975?

I wonder, where do we find basic rationality and agreed ethical standards of behaviour in democratically elected governments and their people? The USA regards itself as the cradle of democracy. Freedom of speech is a cherished value. Yet, we have witnessed numerous cracks, even mighty holes, in the manner of electioneering and campaigning by both major political parties. In our own national parliament we regularly hear name-calling and unfounded and uncontrolled personal and slanderous attacks on opposing sides of any debate.

As I was reflecting on this growing phenomenon in the public arena of both nations, I read an article by Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, a prolific religious and social commentator in America. Writing in the National Catholic Reporter, she wrote about her own dismay about the electioneering in her country. She said:

“Chaos, name-calling, dark accusations and groundless exaggerations claimed the day… Data, plans, platform and decency had all left the field…

“The press followed name-calling, serial lying, outrageous behaviour, gutter talk, and fact-free exaggerations like a hound dog, tongues hanging out, rationality to the wind. Why?”

There seems to be one word that keeps coming to mind in this niggle that I have been feeling. Calumny. It’s an old-fashioned word. The Oxford Dictionary defines calumny as “the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander”.

Calumny is not only a moral precept in the Christian tradition. It is also a strong moral imperative in other religious belief systems such as Judaism, Hinduism and Islam. The eighth commandment of the Jewish tradition states: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16).

It would seem that in the Western world at least, where religious belief has lost much of its credibility and influence, there is a moral vacuum when it comes to personal responsibility about what is accepted rhetoric about others. Anything can be said which might foster one’s popularity regardless of its impact on others and their reputation. To lie and to slander have no negative consequences. It seems to be accepted by broader society.

Secular social ethics and the emphasis on individualism and relativism seek only a legal framework to provide the parameters of acceptable behaviour, rather than looking to a personal moral code or a broader social narrative for human behaviour and action.

It seems that calumny is no longer regarded as an evil and as destructive of the fabric of society or individuals, or even of one’s neighbour. In fact, calumny is too-often praised and applauded if it allows someone to achieve their self-centred goals and aspirations.

If the eighth commandment of the Jewish and Christian traditions, and if the same values found in other faith traditions were more deeply embedded in our social consciousness, then perhaps calumny would be no more. Civil democratic societies might then have something to be proud of, and integrity might again prevail.

We seem to have a long way to go!

* Sister Clare Condon is the Congregational Leader of the Sisters of the Good Samaritan of the Order of St Benedict.

Download a printer-friendly version (PDF 307KB)

The Good Oil, November 15, 2016. If you would like to republish this article, please contact the editor.

5 Responses to “When does freedom of speech cross the line?”

  1. Carmel Mahoney says:

    Interesting! Whilst we have the recent example of the divisive battle in America for leadership sadly we do experience the same power struggle in our own political environment. After reading your article, Clare it seems clear to me that each of us, no matter of our status, has the responsibility to treat all with respect and dignity. To listen with an open heart and mind to all – the rich, the poor, allowing each to to speak his/her truth no matter how gifted or challenged a person maybe. Surely if each of us engage in this manner we may experience positive change and cleanings.

  2. Donrita says:

    Thank you for a well considered argument Clare. We seem to be living in a world where everything’s OK and a good lawyer will help everything to be legal. There is no thought of decency or morality or, more importantly, kindness, any more. We no longer try to form gentlemen or ladies but only “winners”.
    This conversation needs to be kept going and made more public…who will speak if we don’t?

  3. Terry Clout says:

    Thanks for the article with which I agree.

    I think freedom of speech should exist only when paired with the requirement of always acting ethically.

  4. Anne Dixon says:

    Mm, thanks for this article Clare. When I saw the heading I thought immediately of here in the Philippines. Where one has to think twice about ‘freedom of speech’ for fear of being ‘too emotive’ and upsetting certain people!

  5. Peter Slocum says:

    A wise person once shared with me that freedom of will was not so much about doing what one wanted, but having the freedom to choose to do the right thing: and what a remarkable gift that is! So also with freedom of speech…… I well remember the good Nuns and Brothers in Primary School warning us of the dangers of “calumny and detraction” – and what a wonderful world it would be if we could eliminate both?

Leave a Comment

The aim of The Good Oil's comment section is to encourage respectful conversation and dialogue. When posting your comment please:

  • be brief (no more than 120 words) and keep on topic;
  • be respectful of others whether you agree with their opinion or not;
  • be careful about posting your personal information online.

Our comment section is moderated. Your name and email are required for identification purposes. Your email will not be published. We reserve the right to not publish comments.