DeepSummary
Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister, hosts this podcast episode on freedom of expression with guest Jodie Ginsburg, CEO of Index on Censorship. They discuss the evolution of free speech rights from historical philosophers like John Stuart Mill to modern legal protections like the European Convention on Human Rights. Challenging issues like defining harm, balancing competing rights, compelled speech cases like the 'gay cake' case, and restrictions on speech under laws like the UK's Communications Act are explored.
Ginsburg explains how free speech is a fundamental right essential for advocating other rights and social change, but also how modern social media has created new conflicts around offensive speech, hate speech laws, and determining reasonable restrictions. The roles and protections for journalists are examined, including cases like those involving Julian Assange and Tommy Robinson.
Throughout the discussion, the core tension of allowing maximum free expression while preventing demonstrable harm is analyzed from various perspectives. Key considerations like intent, context, public interest, and impacts on justice systems and democracy are weighed.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that enables advocacy for all other rights and social change.
- While largely protected, free speech has legal restrictions related to preventing harm, protecting justice systems, and other societal interests.
- Defining 'harm' from speech in the modern context is a core challenge, requiring nuanced analysis of intent, impacts, public interest and rights balancing.
- Social media has turbocharged speech issues by allowing mass publishing of potentially offensive content with broad reach.
- There are specific protections and responsibilities for journalists related to court reporting, national security, and public interest.
- Compelled speech requirements can violate free expression rights, as reflected in cases like the 'gay cake' ruling.
- Subjective concepts like 'gross offense' in laws pose risks of unreasonable speech restrictions based on individual interpretations.
- Free speech advocates argue restrictions should have a very high harm threshold, while allowing offense and provocative expression vital to democracy.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “Freedom is, as I say, hard won but easily lost. And we have to be able to imagine that it will be lost so that we continue to fight for it.“ by Jody Ginsburg
- “Without the ability to speak freely, how do we advocate for the other rights? So without freedom of expression, it is impossible to do those things.“ by Jody Ginsburg
- “It's not an unreasonable restriction, for example, to suggest that you shouldn't be publishing damaging information about an individual midway through the trial that might affect the outcome of the trial because otherwise justice is not being properly served.“ by Jody Ginsburg
- “If we are going to restrict people's free expression, and we've talked about why free expression is so important, then I think there has to be a very, very high threshold for proving that your speech has caused some kind of harm that makes it worthy of being restricted.“ by Jody Ginsburg
Entities
Person
Book
Service
Company
Legal
Organization
Episode Information
Better Human Podcast
Adam Wagner
9/29/19