which it is said. This is an argument which questions the very definition
of free speech. Fish (1994) states that what is regarded as ‘free’ speech
is a matter of power and politics. Fish (p.116) contends that ‘there is no
such thing as free (non-ideologically constrained) speech; no such thing
as a public forum purged of ideological pressures or exclusions’. He
goes on to argue that ‘it is just the name given to verbal behaviour that
serves the substantive agendas we wish to advance’ (p.102). To make
a similar point, Berlin (1958: 369-373) termed it ‘negative’ freedom; he
saw the assertion of someone’s freedom as a means to justify of any
kind of expression, be it kind or hateful. Concerning the Jyllands-Posten
cartoons, Snel (2013: 135) links these two arguments to explain that
freedom of speech ‘in another world could just as easily justify Islamic or
other religious utterances par excellence dependent on the right political
and ideological conditions’. This shows that tolerating intolerance in the
name of free speech works both ways: to argue it from your side is to
argue it from theirs.
Free speech and moral communication regarding safe spaces
The cases mentioned so far are all circumstances in which someone
is expressing their opinions on somebody removed from themselves.
Levinas (1969) sees the ‘other’ as anyone who is other to you by virtue
of their ‘inner world’ being different to your own. He argues that to
communicate morally, the most important thing is to listen to the ‘other’
as they attempt to communicate a part of their ‘inner world’.
Freedom of speech and the right to debate has been the centre of the
discussion on University safe spaces. These are spaces where students
can meet and talk without fear of being shut down or diminished in
some way - spaces for people who may not otherwise feel comfortable
to speak. In 2016, Prime Minister Theresa May said she ‘absolutely’
agreed with Victoria Atkins, a Conservative MP, who weighed in on the
topic, declaring that ‘freedom of speech is a fundamental British value
which is undermined by so-called ‘safe spaces’ in our universities, where
a sense of entitlement by a minority of students means that their wish
not to be offended shuts down debate’. May added ‘I think everybody
is finding this concept of safe spaces quite extraordinary, frankly’. Snel
argues that ‘you cannot defend freedom by abolishing it’, that to truly
stand for freedom of speech you must listen to ideas you disagree with’.
He jokes: ‘Everyone loves free speech, Hitler and Stalin adored it’.
36