The right to freedom of speech is one of the fundamental principles of democracy, and it is one which democratic societies are rightly very proud of. The right to freedom of speech includes the right, within limits, to say and write whatever we like about any subject. Putting aside the chances of being accused of slander, libel, or incitement to racial or religious hatred, the right to freedom of speech ensures that we are free to express ourselves and our opinions.
The right to free speech found its original justification in protecting people from authoritarian oppression because the concept enabled people to speak out against governments without fear of punishment. In addition to this and as a fundamental principle of liberalism, freedom of speech falls in line with other liberal rights as enabling the individual to do and say whatever they like as long as they don't harm others. In other words, individual freedom is paramount. Furthermore, J. S. Mill thought that freedom of expression did not just ensure an individual's freedom and happiness but that it might actually contribute to society by revealing better ways of living.
What is interesting about freedom of speech is that it is defended as being an important right of the person doing the speaking, writing or drawing. (Although Mill thought that free expression would eventually benefit society, this was arguably an added bonus and definitely came second to the idea of the right of the individual to be free.) Is there another side to free speech? Can it be defended not only as a right of the speaker, but perhaps as a right of the listener also? If I have a right to say and write what I like, does it make sense to say I also have a right to hear and read what others say?
This sounds like a strange suggestion, but it may well turn out that free speech is not only important because of what I can express, but because of what it forces me to hear as well. Consider the idea of religious offence. Some religious believers find it incredibly offensive to hear criticisms of their beliefs, especially if these critiques take satirical or mocking forms. Think for example of the Danish cartoon saga, or of Jerry Springer: The Opera. Many people, both Muslims and atheists, found the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad deeply offensive, insulting and even racist. There was outcry on both sides of the debate, one side championed free speech and the other championed religious respect.
What was largely ignored in the debate however, was the possibility that satirical cartoons of a religious figure could be defended, not only on the principle of the individual's right to express themselves, but because such drawing actually demonstrated respect for the religious believer. This is not as bizarre as it sounds, although it does require a little more work than the simple free speech defence of satirical religious expressions.
The case for this position can be made by understanding what "respect" means. There are many subtleties in the concept of respect but it can be striped down to the fairly simple (and not so simple) idea that respecting something or someone means recognising what that object is, and recognising what characteristics make that object worthy of whatever we discern respectful treatment to be. So to respect a human being, I must recognise a 'thing' as belonging to the group 'human being', then I must acknowledge what feature of being a human being makes it worthy of being treated of respect. Then I must decide what respectful treatment actually entails, and crucially, the treatment we decide upon must make reference to the feature we found so respect worthy. Phew.
So, what does that mean? Why do we think humans deserve this 'respect'? Arguably, what marks humans out as beings worthy of the kind of respectful treatment we don't think we owe to animals (few would claim it is equally disrespectful to mock a dog for example), is our rationality and our autonomy. This is the Kantian idea that what makes us worthy of certain treatment is our powers of reasoning and the ability to adopt and follow our own rules. It is true that many of our other features demand specific treatments or attitudes from others, for example our ability to feel pain means others are morally required to avoid ( and protect us from) injury, but it is our features of rationality and autonomy that require other to treat us with what we call 'respect'.
Deciding what respectful treatment of human beings actually entails must therefore recognise them as reasoning and autonomous beings. Respectful treatment does therefore NOT entail protection from views (speech, writing or pictures) that in fact directly recognises those respect-worthy features. This is actually disrespectful because it avoids acknowledging the rational and autonomous powers people have. For example, when I express the view that belief in God is 'stupid', I am directly challenging God-believers to use those powers of rationality and autonomy to either challenge me in return or assess and alter their own views. I am recognising they have those powers and asking them to fulfil them. That is real respect.
Satirising religious views, as in the Danish cartoons, can therefore be defended not only because the cartoonists had a right to express themselves, but because the believers had a right to have their powers of rationality and autonomy respected by those who disagreed with their beliefs. They had a right to see pictures which recognised, and brought to the fore, the very features that qualify them as human beings.
