CJC 2018 Prelims GP (P2 Insert)

Passage 1. AC Grayling argues for free speech. 1 Liberty is not divisible; a society's members do not have it if they have only some of it in some spheres. That is why incremental reductions of aspects of civil liberty in society are a danger. The too-true cliché says that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, which is why we must resist, and resist vigorously, the early stages of assaults on liberty especially those made by well-meaning politicians who earnestly, eagerly, sincerely desire to protect us from bad people and from ourselves, for those are the most insidious. 5 2 The foundation of liberty is free speech. Without free speech one cannot claim other liberties, or defend them when they are attacked. Without free speech one cannot have a democratic process which requires the statement and testing of po licy proposals and party platforms. Without free speech one cannot have a due process at law in which one can defend oneself, accuse, collect and examine evidence, make a case or refute one. Without free speech there cannot be genuine education and research, enquiry, debate, exchange of information, challenges to falsehood, questioning of governments, proposal and examination of opinion. Without free speech there cannot be a free press, which although it always abuses its freedoms in the hunt for profit, is necessary as a watchdog in a free society. Without free speech there cannot be a flourishing literature and theatre. Without free speech there are limits to innovation and experiment in any walk of life. In short, without free speech there is no real freedom. 10 15 3 It is also true that there have to be limits to free speech at times. But it is absolutely vital that this be understood scrupulously and carefully. The standard exam ple of a case where limits to free speech are justified is falsely crying "fire!" in a crowded cinema. In the example, what is wrong with doing this is irresponsibly causing harm. Allowed too wide a reading, the "fire!" example can justify all manner of unjustifiable restrictions on free speech, as have occurred in our country in recent years (“glorification of terrorism”, “incitement to religious hatred”). Restrictions on free speech have to be extremely narrow, extremely specific, case by case, one-off and on the best justification. But, generally, the remedy for bad free speech is better free speech in response. 20 25 4 So vital is free speech to the health and liberty of a society that the plea of “feeling offended” by what people say about one's choices and beliefs is not and can never be a reason for limiting free speech. Taking offence, followed by infantile demonstrations and infinitely more offensive threats of mayhem and death, has become typical of religious extremists. This is unacceptable anywhere, but in western liberal democracies especially so, for it strikes at the heart of what makes them both liberal and democr