FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22373, 21 September 1934, Page 10

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

TO THE EDITOB.

Si^—lt is rather unfortunate that a discussion on such a serious subject as freedom of speech should become so disconnected that the real issue is lost in a maze of assertions which, however true some of them may be, have no bearing on the question. Some of your correspondents have laboured the fact that we in British-speaking countries enjoy a greater freedom than people in other countries do. Is this a reason why intolerance should not be arrested or a reason why the British Empire should be brought down to the level of those other countries? Should not our aim be to foster the freedom that we do possess? Correspondents have pointed out that the street is not the proper place for orators to propound their opinions, and, personally, I agree with them. If the authorities thought it necessary to stop the practice it would hardly show that freedom of speech was in danger, so long as all schools of thought were treated alike, and at the present time such is not the case. The discrimination that exists in connection with broadcasting is just one glaring instance. A correspondent denounces any criticism of the Government, and cites a country where that is tabooed. Looking back a couple of centuries 1 see a vivid picture of gentlemen belonging to this line of thought. I see the Church Government burning alleged witches and dissenters at the stake while those with a “ kink ” are fighting the barbarous practice with the very limited freedom they possess. I can hear the gentlemen replying to the “kinks”: “You have no right to criticise this practice, for it is sanctioned by Government and Church, and, besides, it is the rule in other countries.” It was only a couple of years back when a very responsible citizen was put “on the mat” for expressing her opinions regarding economic ortiiodoxy. “ Profauus Vulgus ” and “E. W. F.” have each stated their case in a constructive manner which has been free from any abuse, so it should at least be an incentive to their opponents to leave out petty jibes—but a weak case and abuse are usually inseparable pale.—l am, etc., September 19. J. T.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,— Unlike “Cockney,” I do not c6nsider that “ E. W. F.’s ” letters are “ rigmaroles.” As a subscriber to your paper for many years, I can truthfully say that of all your corresepondcnce on many subjects the letters of “E. W. F.” arc, to me, the most interesting. They display <leep and clear thinking, and are free from personalities, and arc obviously the result, of a great amount of study. “E. W. F.” has the ability to express Ins thoughts in so clear, so interesting, and so convincing a manner that, so far from being “dry as dust,” they are, to me. a sheer delight. It is a grand thing for the people of any country, including “ Cockney,” that we have men of the ability of “E. W. F.” and “Frofanum Vnlgus.” whose honesty of purpose is undoubted, so able and so keen to fight for truth and freedom of speech.—l am, etc., New Zealander.

Dimback, September IS. [This correspondence is closed in the meantime. — Ed. O.D.T.]