Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences
2011-11-03 08:50
A few years ago, I was standing in a rather higgledy queue to pay for parking, and when I stepped up to take my turn, a woman behind me made some snide comment about me pushing in. I turned to her and politely explained that I had been in the queue all along. She didn’t take it well.
She followed me all the way to my car and made a big show of taking down my licence number, shrieking all the while that she was going to report me to the police for infringing on her right to freedom of speech.
At the time I thought that the woman had a few screws loose and didn’t have much understanding of what freedom of speech was all about. However, in the wake of the furore surrounding the feminist protest against some rather distasteful T-shirts on sale at Foschini, I see that many South Africans have a conflicting view on this right.
Markhams and Sports Scene, members of the Foschini Group, were carrying men’s T-shirts with such messaging as “I put the STD in Stud, all I need is U”. After customer complaints, FeministsSA called for a boycott of all Foschini stores, and Foschini responded by removing the T-shirts immediately.
A good outcome, many thought. But then a second wave of controversy hit as those concerned with freedom of speech (a right that is admittedly being eroded in South Africa) said that while they would never wear the T-shirts themselves, they believed the story set a dangerous precedent in the fight for this freedom.
However, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It means that you will be free from legal prosecution if you say something the government doesn’t like, and it means that your neighbour can’t justifiably stone you to death for saying you think his wife is hot - but it doesn’t free you from the response of others to your opinions.
If I were to tell my husband that I hated him (I don’t), it would be my right to do so, but he would leave me. I couldn’t then complain that he had infringed on my right to freedom of speech by responding negatively to my statement.
In much the same way, FeministsSA had every right to communicate their displeasure to Foschini. Foschini then had the choice to respond in one way or another. Yes, a threat was made against their stores, which could ultimately damage their bottom line (although not by too much, I’d imagine), but they chose to withdraw the T-shirts for the sake of brand perception.
So, if I were to take to the streets proclaiming that I hate all redheads (I don’t), anyone would be free to try and change my mind through argument or persuasion. My friends could threaten not to visit me anymore until I stopped my campaign of hatred against the red devils - they wouldn’t be infringing on my rights; they would be exercising theirs.
As for the people who choose to wear those ridiculous shirts, they’re welcome to, but they must accept responsibility for the perceptions of those who see them. If they feel that their right to freedom of expression is being curtailed by the withdrawal of those items from Foschini, they are fully entitled to go and have their own versions printed.
So, like the woman behind me in the parking queue, those speaking out in defence of Foschini need to get a grip on what freedom of speech really offers.
- Georgina Guedes is a freelance writer. You can follow @georginaguedes on Twitter.
Send your comments to Georgina
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the
expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on
News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the
views of News24.
- News24