In full: Rowan Atkinson on free speech

Summary

The speaker passionately advocates for the importance of free speech, ranking it second only to the basic need for sustenance. They express concern over the arrest of individuals for seemingly trivial offenses, highlighting the potential for laws to stifle dissent and create an authoritarian society. The speaker criticizes the 'new intolerance' and calls for more open dialogue, including the right to insult or offend, as a means to build societal immunity to offense and promote a robust, critical discourse.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ The speaker values free speech as the second most precious thing in life, after the necessity of food for survival.
• 🏠 The speaker expresses concern for those less privileged and more vulnerable to legal actions due to their lower public profile.
• 🚔 Examples given include arrests for seemingly trivial reasons, highlighting the potential absurdity of laws restricting free speech.
• 🎭 A connection is drawn between a past comedic sketch and current real-life scenarios, showing life imitating art in the context of free speech restrictions.
• 🚫 The speaker criticizes the use of laws to suppress free expression, especially when cases are dropped due to public ridicule rather than legal merit.
• 🤔 The speaker questions the effectiveness of laws that allow for the arrest and questioning of individuals for expressing opinions that could be seen as insulting.
• 📚 A reference to Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights suggests that insulting language should not be criminalized.
• 🚨 The speaker argues that the outlawing of insult can lead to the interpretation of many forms of expression as such, including criticism, ridicule, and sarcasm.
• 🌐 The speaker sees a culture of authoritarian control and new intolerance emerging from well-intentioned laws meant to contain societal obnoxious elements.
• 💡 The speaker advocates for addressing underlying issues through dialogue rather than arrests, suggesting that more exposure to offensive speech can build societal immunity to taking offense.
• 📢 The speaker supports the idea that the best response to hateful speech is not repression but more speech, echoing President Obama's stance on the matter.
• 🛑 The speaker calls for the repeal of certain laws as a small but critical step towards reversing a culture of over-sensitivity and promoting robust dialogue.

Q & A

What is the speaker's most precious belief in life?

The speaker's most precious belief in life is the right to express oneself freely, just below the need for food in one's mouth to sustain life.

What are the speaker's concerns regarding free speech?

The speaker's concerns are less for themselves due to their high public profile and more for those who are more vulnerable due to their lower profiles, such as individuals arrested for seemingly trivial offenses related to free speech.

Can you provide an example of a ludicrous offense mentioned in the script?

An example of a ludicrous offense is the arrest of a man in Oxford for calling a police horse gay.

What fictional context does the speaker refer to when discussing free speech?

The speaker refers to a show called 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' where they performed a sketch about a racist police officer arresting people for ridiculous reasons, which mirrors real-life situations.

What is the issue with the current law that the speaker criticizes?

The issue with the current law is that it allows for the arrest and prosecution of individuals for merely insulting language or behavior, which can be broadly interpreted and lead to a chilling effect on free expression.

What does the speaker believe is the best way to increase society's resistance to insulting or offensive speech?

The speaker believes that the best way to increase society's resistance is to allow more of such speech, building immunity to taking offense, similar to how exposure to childhood diseases builds resistance.

What is the speaker's view on the statement 'I am only intolerant of intolerance'?

The speaker criticizes this statement as a replacement of one kind of intolerance with another, which does not represent progress and fails to address underlying prejudices and resentments.

What does the speaker suggest as the strongest weapon against hateful speech?

The speaker suggests that the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression but more speech, allowing for robust dialogue that includes the right to insult or offend.

What is the 'reform section 5 campaign' mentioned by the speaker?

The 'reform section 5 campaign' is a movement to reform or repeal section 5 of the Public Order Act, which allows for arrests based on speech that might be construed as insulting, in order to prevent the suppression of free speech.

How does the speaker describe the current culture of intolerance?

The speaker describes the current culture of intolerance as a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent, created by a society that has become extraordinarily authoritarian and controlling.

What does the speaker suggest as a priority in dealing with free speech issues?

The speaker suggests that the priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger, focusing on addressing the issues raised by free speech rather than suppressing the speech itself.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Free Speech and the Chilling Effect of Overregulation

The speaker passionately advocates for the importance of free speech, ranking it just below the basic human needs of food and shelter. They express concern for the vulnerability of those with lower public profiles who face legal repercussions for expressing themselves, citing examples such as the arrest of individuals for calling a police horse gay or labeling the Church of Scientology a cult. The speaker criticizes the law for its potential to suppress dissenting voices and create an authoritarian society, arguing that the law's effectiveness is not proven by dropped cases due to publicity but rather highlights the need for reform. They emphasize that criticism, ridicule, and alternative viewpoints should not be criminalized and that the law's interpretation can lead to a chilling effect on free expression.

05:04

🔒 The Paradox of Intolerance and the Need for Open Dialogue

This paragraph discusses the paradox of advocating intolerance of intolerance, which ultimately replaces one form of intolerance with another. The speaker argues for addressing underlying issues through open dialogue rather than legal action, likening society's resistance to offensive speech to building immunity through exposure. They support the idea that more speech, not repression, is the best response to hateful rhetoric, as stated by President Obama. The speaker calls for a repeal of certain restrictive clauses to counteract the culture of over-sensitivity and the 'outrage industry,' where self-appointed arbiters and media stoke public anger. They conclude by endorsing the reform of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which they see as a step towards fostering a more robust and open society that can handle criticism and dissent without resorting to legal suppression.

Keywords

💡Free Speech

Free speech refers to the right to express one's opinions without censorship or restraint. It is a fundamental human right and a cornerstone of democratic societies. In the video, the speaker passionately argues that free speech is the second most precious thing in life, highlighting its importance to them personally and professionally. The script discusses various instances where free speech has been curtailed, emphasizing the need to protect this right.

💡Insult

An insult is a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action. The video discusses the problematic nature of outlawing insults, as it can lead to the criminalization of mere criticism or alternative viewpoints. The speaker argues that the law's interpretation of insults can be too broad, leading to the chilling effect on free expression, as seen in the examples provided, such as the arrest for calling a police horse gay.

💡Censorship

Censorship is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. The speaker in the video criticizes the culture of censorship that has developed, suggesting it is a form of authoritarian control that stifles dissenting voices and fosters a new intolerance.

💡Dissent

Dissent is the expression of an opinion that you disagree with the majority. The video emphasizes the importance of allowing dissenting voices in a society for it to be robust and healthy. The speaker argues that the current legal framework and societal attitudes are intolerant of dissent, which undermines the strength of dialogue and free speech.

💡Public Order Act

The Public Order Act is a UK legislation that addresses various forms of disorderly conduct. Specifically, Section 5 of the Act, mentioned in the script, allows for the arrest of anyone for saying anything that might be construed as insulting. The speaker criticizes this section as it provides the police with too much latitude to arrest individuals for their speech, contributing to the culture of intolerance.

💡Chilling Effect

The chilling effect refers to the phenomenon where the exercise of free speech or other rights is discouraged by the fear of legal repercussions. The video script uses this term to describe the impact of laws that criminalize insults or offensive speech, suggesting that such laws can deter people from expressing their opinions freely.

💡Tolerance

Tolerance is the acceptance or endurance of views, behaviors, or beliefs that differ from one's own. The speaker in the video discusses a 'new intolerance' that has emerged, where there is an intense desire to suppress offensive or dissenting speech. This new intolerance is seen as a threat to the robust dialogue necessary for a healthy society.

💡Criticism

Criticism is the act of expressing disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes. The video argues that criticism can easily be misconstrued as an insult, which can lead to legal repercussions under current laws. The speaker advocates for a society that can handle criticism without resorting to censorship or legal action.

💡Dialogue

Dialogue refers to a conversation between two or more people, often used to discuss or explore a topic. The speaker in the video emphasizes the importance of robust dialogue in a society, including the right to insult or offend, as a means to build immunity to taking offense and to address issues rather than silencing the messenger.

💡Repression

Repression is the act of suppressing or subduing something, often by force or authority. The video argues against the use of repression as a means to combat hateful speech, suggesting that it can become a tool for silencing critics or oppressing minorities. Instead, the speaker advocates for more speech as the strongest weapon against offensive speech.

💡Section 5 Reform Campaign

The Section 5 Reform Campaign is a movement to reform Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which the speaker in the video supports. The campaign aims to address the issues with the current law that allows for the arrest of individuals for potentially insulting speech. The speaker offers their wholehearted support to this campaign as a step towards reducing the culture of censorship and promoting free speech.

Highlights

The speaker passionately believes that free expression is the second most precious thing in life, just after the need for sustenance.

Concerns about free speech are primarily for those more vulnerable due to their lower public profile.

Examples of ludicrous arrests include a man for calling a police horse gay and a teenager for calling the Church of Scientology a cult.

The speaker recalls a past show where absurd charges were made, reflecting a life imitating art scenario with current laws.

Publicity led to the dropping of cases like the gay horse incident, indicating the importance of media attention.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights suggests that insulting language should not be criminalized.

Criticism, ridicule, and sarcasm can easily be misconstrued as insults, leading to the criminalization of free speech.

The speaker criticizes the authoritarian and controlling nature of society, which stifles dissenting voices.

Intolerance of intolerance replaces one form of intolerance with another, representing no progress.

The speaker advocates for addressing underlying issues through dialogue rather than arrests.

Building immunity to taking offense is compared to dealing with childhood diseases, suggesting exposure as a form of resistance.

President Obama's quote is cited to emphasize that the best weapon against hateful speech is more speech, not repression.

The repeal of the word 'insult' in a clause is seen as a small but critical step towards a more open dialogue.

The speaker supports the reform of Section 5 of the Public Order Act to prevent the arrest of individuals for potentially offensive speech.

The 'outrage industry' is criticized for encouraging media and public anger, pressuring the police to react inappropriately.

The speaker calls for a robust society with robust dialogue, including the right to insult or offend, as a sign of a healthy democracy.

The campaign to reform Section 5 is wholeheartedly supported as a necessary step in combating a culture of over-sensitivity.

Transcripts

my starting point when it comes to the

consideration of any issue relating to

free speech is my passionate belief that

the second most precious thing in life

is the right to express yourself freely

the most precious thing in life I think

is food in your mouth now the third most

precious is a roof over your head but a

fixture for me in the number two slot is

free expression just below need to

sustain life itself that is because I

have enjoyed free expression in this

country all my professional life and

fully expected to continue to do so

personally I suspect highly unlikely to

be arrested for whatever laws exist to

contain free expression because of the

undoubtedly privileged position that is

afforded to those of a high public

profile so my concerns are less for

myself and more for those more

vulnerable because of their lower

profile like the man arrested in Oxford

for calling a police horse gay or the

teenager arrested for calling the Church

of Scientology a cult or the cafe owner

arrested for displaying passages from

the Bible on a TV screen when I heard of

some of these more ludicrous offenses

and charges I remembered that I had been

here before in a fictional context I

once did a show called not the nine

o'clock news some years ago and we did a

sketch where Griff Rhys Jones played

constable Savage

a manifestly racist police officer to

whom I as his station commander is

giving a dressing-down for arresting a

black man on a whole string of

ridiculous trumped-up and ludicrous

challenges the charges for which

comfortable savage arrested mr. Winston

cadeaux go 55 Mercer Road with these

walking on the cracks in the pavement

walking in a loud shirt in a built-up

area during the hours of darkness and

one of my favorites walking around all

over the place

he was also arrested for urinating in a

public convenience and looking at me in

a funny way who would have thought that

we would end up with a law that would

allow life to imitate art so exactly I

read somewhere a defender of the status

quo claiming that the fact that the gay

horse case was dropped after the

arrested man refused to pay the to pay

the fine and that the Scientology case

was also dropped at some point during

the court process was proof that the law

was working well ignoring the fact that

the only reason these cases were dropped

was because of the publicity that they

had attracted but police sensed the

ridicule was just around the corner and

withdrew their actions but what about

the thousands of other cases that did

not enjoy the oxygen of publicity that

weren't quite ludicrous enough to

attract media attention even for those

actions that were withdrawn people were

arrested questioned taken to court and

then released you know that is the law

working properly that is sensoria sness

of the most intimidating kind guaranteed

to have as Lord err says the chilling

effect on free expression and free

protests Parliament's Joint Committee on

Human Rights summarised as you may know

this whole issue very well by saying

while arresting a protester for using

threatening or abusive speech may

depending on the circumstances be a

proportionate response we do not think

that language or behavior that is merely

insulting should ever be criminalized in

this way the clear problem with the

outlawing of insult is the too many

things can be interpreted as such

criticism is easily construed as insult

by certain parties ridicule easily

construed as insult sarcasm unfavorable

comparison merely stating an alternative

point of view to the orthodoxy can be

interpreted as insult and because so

many things can be interpreted as insult

it is hardly surprising that so many

things have been as the examples I

talked about earlier show although the

law under discussion has been on the

statute book for over 25 years it is

indicative of a culture that has taken

hold of the programs of successive

governments that were the reasonable and

well-intentioned ambition to contain

obnoxious elements in society has

created a society of an extraordinarily

authoritarian and controlling nature

that is what you might call the new

intolerance a new but intense desire to

gag uncomfortable voices of dissent I am

NOT intolerant say many people say many

softly spoken highly educated and

liberal minded people

I am only intolerant of intolerance and

people tend to not sagely and some yes

wise words wise words and yet if you

think about this supposedly inarguable

statement for longer than 5 seconds you

realize that all it is advocating is the

replacement of one kind of intolerance

with another which to me doesn't

represent any kind of progress at all

underlying prejudices and justices or

resentments are not addressed by

arresting people they are addressed by

the issues being aired argued and dealt

with preferably outside the legal

process for me the best way to increase

society's resistance to insulting or

offensive speech is to allow a lot more

of it as with childhood diseases you can

better resist those germs to which you

have been exposed we need to build our

immunity to taking offence

so that we can deal with the issue that

perfectly justified criticism can raise

our priority should be to deal with the

message not the messenger as President

Obama said in an address to the United

Nations only a month or so ago laudable

efforts

to restrict speech can become a tool to

silence critics or oppress minorities

the strongest weapon against hateful

speech is not repression it is more

speech and that's the essence of my

thesis more speech if we want a robust

society we need more robust dialogue and

that must include the right to insult or

to offend and as even if as Lord deer

says you know the freedom to be

inoffensive

is no freedom at all the repeal of this

word in this clause will be only a small

step but it will I hope be a critical

one in what should be a longer-term

project to pause and slowly rewind a

creeping culture of sensoria sness it is

a small skirmish in the battle in my

opinion to deal with what sir salman

rushdie refers to as the outrage

industry self-appointed arbiters of the

public good

encouraging media stoke and rage to

which the police feel under terrible

pressure to react a newspaper rings up

Scotland Yard someone has said something

slightly insulting on Twitter about

someone who we think a national treasure

what are you going to do about and the

police panic and they Scrabble around

and then grasp the most inappropriate

lifeline of all section five of the

Public Order Act that thing where you

arrest anybody for saying anything that

might be construed by anyone else as

insulting you know they don't seem to

need a real victim they need no need to

make the judgement that somebody could

have been offended if they had heard or

read what has been said the most

ludicrous degree of latitude the storms

that surround Twitter and Facebook

comment have raised some fascinating

issues about free speech which we

haven't really yet come to terms with

firstly but we all have to take

responsibility for what we say which is

quite a good lesson to learn but

secondly we've learned how appalling Lea

prickly and intolerance

has become of even the mildest adverse

comment the law should not be aiding and

abetting this new intolerance free

speech can only suffer if the law

prevents us from dealing with its

consequences

I offer my wholehearted support to the

reform section 5 campaign thank you very

much

[Applause]