Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

"The last two books are about America. The Anthony Lewis book is a history of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is a subject of endless fascination with me. At Index on Censorship we have been fighting hard for freedom of speech and freedom of the press since the autumn, when we published our proposals for changing English libel law to stop libel tourists using the courts here. What is fascinating, when you read Lewis’s book, is the extent to which the way people look at freedom of expression in the US is fundamentally different: this is reinforced whenever you discuss the issue with anyone in America. The idea of the constitutional right is inculcated from elementary school – an absolute guarantee of freedom of speech circumscribed only in extremis. In Britain we talk about a balance of competing forces, which is quite different. But if you start from the American perspective, which is that freedom of speech is paramount, with the exception of shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre, or whatever your own ‘Yes, but’ is. Even freedom advocates, everybody in fact, has their own ‘Yes, but’. Whether it is the fire shout in the theatre, or whatever. My own ‘Yes, but’ is clear and present danger. In my view the idea of giving offence as a reason for limiting freedom of expression has gone completely crazy in Britain. Comedians are very good at working away at this, though. But that’s just a matter of taste. I’m not requiring that everybody appreciates what somebody says. If you don’t like it you can go. The point is that person has a perfect right to carry on with it. I was looking at censorship in the arts for the Arts Council just over a year ago, and indeed at self-censorship. And I was shocked, really shocked, when a theatre manager in the regions told me that when they are putting together their programme for the forthcoming season or year they have a focus group of local stakeholders and they run it past them, asking, ‘Is there anything in this programme that could remotely cause you offence?’ I mean, there is no constitutional right not to be offended, but there ought to be a constitutional right to freedom of expression. For me, there are issues, for example, if an artwork is sexually explicit, you have absolute right to display it but it should be in a place where people make an active choice to go in and view. You have to give people the opportunity to say no. Anything that actively threatens or incites violence against specific people, to me that is beyond the pale, but it has to be very clearly demarcated. So that is where the First Amendment begins, and Lewis’s is a brilliant account."