challenged. Should an argument in favour of intolerance be disallowed,
then intolerance would already have won.
To conclude: firstly, it seems clear that the conceptualisation of freedom
of speech is key to the argument of toleration. The idea that free speech
is a matter of power and politics appears essential in understanding that
not everyone has the same starting point from which to exercise the right
to free speech. To apply this to the world of satire means that toleration
can be judged on the basis of whether the satire is ‘punching up’ and
making comment to further a debate. Evidently, seeing the freedom
of speech as an entity separate from such constraints as power and
politics is unhelpful in the discussion of whether intolerance should be
tolerated in the name of free speech. By looking at the issue of toleration
and freedom of speech in terms of moral communication, a Levinasian
approach would aid the discussion in favour of seeing freedom of speech
as less of a solid entity, a human right, or card-up-the-sleeve in order to
win debate, more as a privilege to call into question when confronted
with the ‘other’. Further, it seems important to recognise that the media
unhelpfully emphasise seeing communication as in need of a winner and
a loser. Thus, there is value in employing the Levinasian understanding
of moral communication as an endeavour rather than a hard and fast
set of rules and in, as he suggests, rejecting the ‘fetish of assertion’
that frequently appears to come hand in hand with the argument for
tolerance of intolerance in the name of free speech. In reference to the
‘PC world’ argument within satire, by being better equipped at censoring
(or teaching) each other, we are making speech better, not stopping
freedom to speak. Instead of seeing other people as attempting to
shut down debate, we should recognise that it is social decency and
responsibility which is containing speech and celebrate it allowing for a
broader range of speech to exist.
References
Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.369-
384.
Fish, S., 1994. There’s no such thing as free speech: And it’s a good thing,
too. Oxford University Press.
Hussain, A.J., 2007. The media’s role in a clash of misconceptions: The case
of the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Harvard International Journal of Press/
Politics, 12(4), pp.112-130.
39