Exploring the line between free speech and hate speech

Robert Thomas firmly believes freedom of speech is key to maintaining democracy and a healthy society, but recognizes the topic raises many questions.

What is the balance between freedom of expression and making everyone feel welcome? Should there be a limit on freedom of speech? How does social media fit into freedom of expression?

“It’s something I feel is a really important issue,” said Thomas.

“It’s certainly a passion of mine. I feel very strongly about the importance of freedom of speech for democracy as a whole, and certainly for universities in particular.”

One topic Thomas often sees rise to the surface is how to find a balance between freedom of speech and limiting hate speech. He believes hate speech should be defined only by the Criminal Code of Canada and not by the changing opinions of society.

Once people begin to limit freedom of speech outside of the legal definition, Thomas said he begins to see a problem.

“Hate speech is often used in a fairly ideological way in popular speech,” he said. “My idea is perfectly fine, but your idea is completely erroneous … it becomes a bit problematic.”

Even ideas he would consider to be conspiracy theories or completely without evidence, Thomas said should still be allowed to circulate and pointed to the anti-vaccine movement as an example. Although he firmly supports vaccines and trusts the science behind it, he does not want to see government or another authority say the opposing viewpoint is illegal.

“As a citizen I should have the right to say ‘that’s completely nonsense’ or ‘you have a point.’ It shouldn’t be some government official or somebody hired for the library or some other public space that decides,” he said.

“If you try to crush an idea that’s nonsense … who decides where we’re going to stop when it comes to an idea that isn’t nonsense?”

Sometimes this means having conversations or listening to opinions that make us uncomfortable, said Thomas, and with social media now giving every voice an equally large platform, how these conversations are happening has changed.

“Freedom of speech has to adapt, at least in the sense that we have to get used to having more explicit conversations, I guess, on matters of public interest,” he said.

“Hopefully the truth will prevail eventually through a public forum where people are allowed to discuss topics of importance to them.”

SOURCE