THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, JULY 30, 1934. FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22327, 30 July 1934, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, JULY 30, 1934. FREEDOM OF SPEECH

In at least three countries in Europe at the present tune personal freedom —particularly that unassessable freedom of thought, intention, and speech that makes life precious—is in grave danger of extinction. For those not only reared under free institutions but also sharing in the maintenance and control of these institutions, such a limitation of their minds is equivalent to a semi-death. Milton has expressed the common sentiment of British people, u Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to think freely upon all subjects above all other liberty.” There is no country more tolerant, more lenient, perhaps even indifferent, as to the utterances of citizens than Great Britain. As a rule reliance is placed upon the good, common sense of men of all classes, and of all shades of political and religious opinion, and with a large measure of success. It may seem strange that under an hereditary monarchy, still supported by an hereditary aristocracy, the flame of free criticism from below should be permitted. The fact is that for several centuries there has been in Europe, and notably in France and the United Kingdom, an elite, an enlightened body of open-minded men, patriotic yet cosmopolitan, aristocratic or aristocratically orientated, who were and still are prepared to consider all controversial questions in a spirit of fairness and goodwill. These men have been the elite, not solely because of birth, or fortune, or intelligence, but because with one or more of these advantages was linked a spirit of freedom. They were as ready to criticise the king, if they thought him wrong, as to criticise the demagogue who was causing disorder. The members of the intelligentsia who are such and nothing else, are merely abstract critics who sit apart from the battle. But the true elite has been in the strife and has yet believed in open discussion. No member of the elite likes to dogmatise about rights. He knows that strictly there is no such thing on earth as right in the abstract.

Every human. being at his first appearance on this mortal stage is an interloper, an intruder, an idler, demanding to be clothed, fed, and nursed, and giving nothing in return —in fact, a parasite. What rights has he? Were it not that Nature has implanted in his begetters the mysterious instinct of parental love, he would not live one day. Finally he shares when an adult with his fellows in such “ rights ” as they and their forefathers have been able to wrest from Nature and from their enemies. Thus a group, a class, 1 a nation is formed, and for the nation the State is the; official representative. The State then embodies in itself such “rights” as it has drawn to itself during its progress. Italy, Russia, and Germany say to the component individuals, “You are nothing in yourselves—the State is everything: in the State you live and move arid have your being: your very language must be under State direction.” France, America, and Great Britain prize freedom of speech. When individuals are free they arc strong, resourceful, inventive, progressive, even if somewhat lacking in unity. In war time, of course, the larger organism, the State, must act for all as a unity; freedom then has to be surrendered. There can be no final rule concerning freedom of speech. Every community ultimately claims the right and employs the will to protect itself against the misuse of freedom. And those persons who prate most loudly about the right of freedom of speech are, as likely as not, the most prone to the abuse of it. In all probability the member of the Lower House who, when discussing the proposal to extend the duration of Parliament, committed himself last week to a statement which, the Speaker said, “ exceeded all bounds,” would be pained to be reminded that, even in a free country, there are limits to the exercise of free speech. And the demagogue who yesterday disturbed the peace of a local church in order to say that a fight for free speech was imminent in this city was exhibiting a confusion of thought. His freedom of speech is not endangered, as long as he expresses himself in lawful language in suitable surroundings, but what he claims is the liberty to hold public meetings, not in open spaces where he may rant to his heart’s content, but in the public thoroughfares at the cost of interference with the traffic and of possible annoyance to passers-by. The freedom of speech is not at stake. The good sense of a British community, its sense of justice, its sporting sense of humour, and its readiness to look facts squarely in the face offer a sufficient safeguard against any attempt to suppress legitimate freedom of speech.