home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TNA-GOLD 1
/
TNA-GOLD - Volume 1.iso
/
24hours
/
essay96.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-03-11
|
4KB
|
73 lines
An Essay for "24 Hours of Democracy": A Canadian Contribution
I have always felt somewhat helpless as I've listened to the raging
debates in the United States about Freedom of Speech and the Internet.
As a Canadian, I have no Congressman or Senator to pester, no basis
for participating. Canada has yet to propose any equivalent legislation;
but all Canadians know that our government has a way of making parallel
moves when they sense a wind blowing from the south.
The invitation to participate in "24 Hours of Democracy", however, is
too good to pass up. We are all concerned with keeping democracy in
good health, and my alarm at the latest American assault on their own
dearest principles is great enough to overcome my natural hesitation
to stick my nose in.
A quote from a Canadian politician offers a thought to ponder on the
issue. It had always dismayed me that the U.S. had a virtual monopoly
on quotable prose about democracy. Canada's Constitution and Bill
of Rights have little to compare to the sheer poetry found in the
writings of Jefferson, Paine, and William James. A few years ago,
however, I ran across something from a speech by John Diefenbaker,
a Canadian Prime Minister that I had admittedly never liked.
He said, "I am a free Canadian. I am free to speak without fear,
free to worship God in my own way, free to choose those who shall
govern my country. This heritage of freedom I swear to uphold
for myself and for all mankind."
Whoa. Take a back seat, Jefferson. That isn't bad. The thought
that deserves consideration is the phrase I don't recall from
American documents: "Free to speak without fear". It is one thing
to be theoretically free to speak your mind. But can you do so
without fear for a long court battle over the limits of your freedom?
Without fear of lawsuit? Without fear of losing your job because
your employer doesn't like association with controversy? Without fear?
Save for a few years of youthful rebellion, the overwhelming majority
of people are cautious souls. People may speak privately of their
grievances against an employer; not one in thirty will march into the
boss's office with the same complaints. When consequences are expensive
and difficult, even a small risk of suffering them is enough to enforce
silence. Freedom from fear is a fragile thing that must be protected
with heavy armor and cradled in silks.
So it came to be that our society, all the nations that have democracy,
built up stronger and stronger protections around the Freedom To Speak
Without Fear, until it became the first among rights and the cornerstone
of all law.
I do not oppose measures like the American restriction of speech on
the Internet because I support the kinds of communication that they
intended to suppress. I oppose them because for every truly awful
indecency, there are ten that are only a little bit awful, a hundred
that are just marginally awful, and a thousand that are not awful
at all but just harmlessly naughty - and all of them will be made
afraid of the law.
Laws that touch in any way upon freedom to speak should be made by
master craftsmen who sculpt with gossamer and spidersilk. They should
be tightly restrained, leashed like attack dogs, lest they cause
the tiniest hint of fear to do surprising, disproportionate damage
to the courage of the populace.
Freedom to speak without fear is the foundation of democracy, and
however unworthy some of its users may be, every chip from that
foundation should be treated as a wound to us all.
Roy Brander, P.Eng.
Calgary, Canada
Home Page: http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~branderr
E-mail: branderr@cuug.ab.ca