FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22369, 17 September 1934, Page 5

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

TO THE EDITOB Sir, —I see that your correspondent "A Lover of True Freedom " marvels at your patience. It does not seem to have occurred to him that there may be others as well as himself with ideas as to what true freedom is. He quotes the proverb "As a man thinketh in his 1 eart so is he." What about the man who thinketh in his brain? Anyway, what is the use of quoting King Solomon, who is said to be the author of the proverbs? He had a great heart,, no doubt, but he lived about a thousand years before the Christian era and lived long enough to discover that he had made a mistake, r.na he found, as many more of us have since found, that the heart is not a very good organ for thinking with, neither is the stomach, though both have an important influence on the real organ of thought. So have the liver and the spleen as scientists well know. Hence their striving for a healthy mind in a healthy body. A lover of true freedom tries to be funuy —does he not? —when he says, " I was forgetting that the 'pi-ofaue' man had no heart except the thing that beats inside his jacket. Shall I assume then that he has a.thing that beats outside of his jacket? Probably thai, is the nee of hearts. I think I can beat that with " the jokes."—l am, etc., John Law. to the editor. Sir, —Your eorrespoindent " E. W. F." has a very shallow conception of the meaning of the word " freedom." He and his followers would, if they were allowed, perch themselves at various vantage points along the streets and proclaim in lurid and terrifying language their obviously extremist views into the ears of innocent itinerants —an unwilling audience. The places set apart for the performance of oratorical exercises by our selfappointed reformers are perhaps little frequented, but certainly not far distant from the more busy corners, the freedom of which from the lusty and raucous outbursts of his followers is a source of continual annoyance to "E. W. P." Should anyone be a bit interested in what " K W. F." and Co. fed in duly bound to hurl upon the peaceful air, surely he will be prepared to take a five- '

minute walk to hear it. If this involves too much exertion then he does not deserve to hear it.

If "E. W. F." were given the unbridled individual liberty which he demands, ~would he discriminate between those who want to hear his " message" and those who do not? I doubt it; more, I cannot believe it. He would present to us a new class of street orator if. he did. The public may, from a street audience point of view, be divided into three classes. First mention, pride of place, must be given to "E. W. F." and Co. because, although a email class, it is tfie one most interested. The next class is a large one, which deplores street oratory, and so has no desire to listen, whatever views _ are being expounded "E. W. F." will probably accuse this class of bigotry and pompousness, but I would remind him that in his own wail for unconditional freedom of both peD and tongue he has displayed a full measure of pomp and bigotry himself. Then there is an intermediate class, holding, as intermediate schools of thought usually do, a vast majority of adherents. The more idle members of this class, wandering along the street with little to do. are attracted by the antics and noise of some social reformer. They attend, amused; they tire a little, then leave, probably more impressed by the waste of energy and breath of the performing man than with his subject material. In the degree in which more freedom is given to "E. W. F." and Co. it must be taken from those who object, and " E. W. F." must admit the present system to be at least the more peaceful. Incongruity is the rock upon which the "soap-box orator" wrecks himself. Though his arguments be sound—they often are-r-and his enthusiasm the effusion of a volcanic conviction, a busy thoroughfar'e can hardly provide a suitable auditorium for their proper reception. —I am, etc., Amused.