FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks has made me realize that there are (at least) two wrong ways of dealing with freedom of expression:

1. Expressing thoughts and feelings whatever the means or consequences.

- The Kouachi brothers did not like certain drawings, and so they felt they had to kill the people who drew them.

- Certain people sent death threats to Peter R. de Vries, a famous Dutch investigative journalist, because he allegedly sympathised with the terrorist acts (he did not).

- The French comedian and idiot Dieudonné has been arrested after sympathizing with Amedy Coulibaly for shooting several Jewish people. He has also received punishments before for 'insulting people of Jewish origin'.

- Certain people are destroying mosques, or attacking random Muslims or other 'foreigners' in response to the shootings.

The first problem with this stance is hypocrisy. Either all people are allowed to express themselves (e.g. cartoonists and Muslim fundamentalists), or nobody. The second problem is that of violence. All people rather live in a system where violation of everybody's property (including their bodies) is prohibited, than a system where such violation is allowed.

2. Not expressing thoughts and feelings that may be disliked by other people.

- The moderate Muslims, and other politically correct people do not want people to picture the prophet Muhammed, or criticize any part of Islam, because people might be offended.

Usually these people are extremely hypocritical. Only certain groups have the right to be offended, others do not. But if you could make it fair - nobody is allowed to express themselves if that results in emotional disapproval - then it's still awful.

WHEN YOU CANNOT EXPRESS YOURSELF

Corruption greatly increases. When you cannot complain about how certain police officers misuse their power, they never get put to justice. Same goes for judges, and for ministers. The greater the power, the more important it is that people speak out about them.

Science ceases to exist. To criticize new or existing ideas is central to scientific progress. When criticism isn't allowed, science turns into religion. Even new ideas that complement old ones are not accepted by all, and so will not be allowed.

Art ceases to exist. Each piece of art, whether a book, or a song, or a painting, is bound to be disliked by someone. All museums, radio stations, and book stores would be closed. People would only be able to express their feelings and creativity in the secrecy of their own home.

Conflicts increase. In contrast with what the politically correct people think, limiting expression will not bring people closer together. People need to talk about their problems. When the thoughts and feelings are never vented, people will become dishonest time-bombs. And the explosion will be violent, not respectful.

CONCLUSION

Expressing your thoughts and feelings is important, and so it is obvious that everybody should have a certain degree of freedom to do so. But it is also clear that some restrictions are necessary.

It is the rest of morality that determines the boundaries of the freedom of expression. And there we have a problem, because different people follow different moral codes. In my opinion it is not hard to come up with one universal moral code, because humans (and even other non-human animals) share many characteristics that lie at the basis of happiness and suffering. In the next post I will show you my attempt to create this universal moral code.