The Proper Range of Freedom of Speech in a Multicultural Society (2017.12)
2017.12.01
- Author : Nam-Kook Kim
- Journal : Journal of International and Area Studies
- Publisher : Institute of International Affairs, Seoul National University
- Volume : 26(4)
- Publication Date : December, 2017
- Abstract : This article discusses the relationship between freedom of speech, hate speech, and freedom of religion through the Danish cartoon affair and Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack. The author tries to find the proper range of freedom of speech beyond a simple dichotomy between freedom of speech and blasphemy in a multicultural society. The aforementioned events and their aftermaths show that freedom of speech can be limited by the regulation of hate speech, and that the guideline of such regulations would be a given identity like race, ethnicity, gender and region, which one could not choose by oneself. Religion in modern western tradition, on the other hand, belongs to a non essential factor of identity that one can choose and convert anytime. While it can be the target of criticism for this reason, in this case one should make a distinction between criticism against religion itself and criticism against people who follow that religion. While the former can be protected under the freedom of speech, the latter can not be protected and becomes an object of hate speech regulation. Although legal regulation can bring about some effects through its symbolic message, the law itself functions to prohibit certain values or action as well as to produce prohibited value or action at the same time. Therefore we should focus more on deliberation and subversion reasoning than on regulation through law. The conditions to participate in deliberation such as mutual respect, rational dialogue, and political rights between social minority and majority, natives and newcomers will both enhance the political legitimacy of decision making procedure in various democratic political communities. In addition, through such deliberation, we can reach a consensus of how freedom of speech as an abstract principle would be interpreted and implemented given the local context in a more concrete way.