Truth-telling

14/12/2024

‘Truth-telling lays at the heart of authentic community.’ (Pete Chapman)

I get it. Some things are better left unsaid, especially if they could prove hurtful, damaging or dangerous. Some things are best said only at the right place and time, in the right spirit or by someone we trust. This is, or course, an intrinsic part of navigating everyday human-social relationships. Imagine, for instance, a relationship or society in which people apply no filters, where people always say whatever they are thinking or feeling with no regard whatsoever for the impact on others. Transparent and no dancing around issues – but could feel pretty bruising.

Imagine also if someone were to reveal intimate personal words or images shared in trust, or to say or portray things that engender hatred or incite violence, or to disclose state secrets with serious security implications. These are the types of considerations that tear hard at the boundaries of freedom of expression in democratic societies. Where should we draw the lines and who should decide? It’s also the arena in which some governments, including the UK, are tipping the tricky balance away from freedom of speech towards freedom from (apparent) harm.

This is a complex issue. If you were to hurt my feelings, would that constitute harm? If you were to express an opinion that I find offensive, would that constitute harm? If your answer to those questions is ‘Yes’, do you believe I should have legal protection from such harm? If your answer to that question is also ‘Yes’, how much hurt or offence would you regard as an appropriate threshold for legal sanction? Should I be expected to demonstrate that your statements are harmful per se, or simply that I find them harmful? And what should such sanctions be?

Applied as a blunt instrument, suppression of expression is a high-risk strategy for ensuring the health of a society. It creates a hidden pressure cooker of seething resentment, waiting to explode. Look, by contrast, at courageous examples such as South Africa after the fall of its repressive apartheid regime. It showed truth-telling is vital to unite a divided society – a principle applied since by other states including Peru, Philippines and Sierra Leone. ‘Conflict is hard, (but) there’s a world of difference between barbed words and barbed wire.’ (Andrew Doyle)

[See also: Free Speech Union; Alumni for Free Speech]

14 Comments

Chase Bennie

14/12/2024 01:07:48 pm

Good post Nick. Truth-telling is a cornerstone of authentic community resonates deeply, particularly when viewed through historical examples like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. Without transparency, festering wounds linger and weak the societal fabric.

Take Rwanda as an example. Post-genocide, truth-telling in the Gacaca courts allowed victims and perpetrators to share their narratives. This wasn’t perfect, justice was sometimes incomplete, but it was transformative for a nation scarred by violence.

Your blog rightly points out the tension between freedom of speech and harm. Still, isn’t it better to engage, even painfully, than to stifle voices? Without truth, there is no reconciliation; without reconciliation, no authentic community.

Nick Wright

16/12/2024 04:18:48 pm

Hi Chase. Yes, I agree - it's far better to engage than to suppress in the hope that the opinions we dislike or disapprove of will somehow disappear.

Faye Newton

14/12/2024 01:13:10 pm

Nick, you're white, male and I'm guessing heterosexual. If you had the lived experience of one of the group 'freedom from harm' measures aim to protect, you may feel very differently about this issue. Sticks and stones can break our bones - and words can really harm us.

16/12/2024 04:24:20 pm

Hi Faye - and well-said. I agree with you and have spent most of my personal and professional career trying to support and defend vulnerable people. Whilst believing earlier in life that voices such as on the extreme right should be banned, I've become far more convinced that silencing is counter-productive and that engaging openly in the public sphere is more effective.

Kristin Dimond

14/12/2024 01:17:22 pm

Hi Nick, your concern over the suppression of expression rightly echoes a troubling trend in democracies. Governments increasingly regulate speech, often under the guise of harm prevention. But harm is subjective, and laws punishing "offensive" speech threaten liberty itself.

Consider the UK’s Online Safety Bill (well-intentioned, but dangerously vague). Could a satirical X-tweet be deemed harmful? What about controversial opinions on religion or politics? Laws targeting subjective harm create a chilling effect.

As John Stuart Mill argued, silencing even one dissenting voice robs humanity of progress. Truth may be uncomfortable, but suppression is far more dangerous. Keep writing Nick. There's never been a more important time to keep raising these concerns.

16/12/2024 04:34:34 pm

Thank you, Kristin. 'Chilling' is a good way to describe the effect. Kafkaesque is another that I find particularly appropriate in the current climate. 'When George Orwell wrote 1984, he meant it as a warning, not as a guide book.' (Adam Smith-Connor) The dangers of suppression surfaced briefly in the summer protests and riots of 2024 in the UK.

Julia Sietsma

14/12/2024 01:49:42 pm

If we want authentic communities, we must embrace truth, tempered by compassion.

16/12/2024 04:36:15 pm

Hi Julia. I agree. 'Truth tempered by compassion' reminds me of Jesus, 'full of grace and truth.' Not always easy in practice...but the spirit of engagement that we need to aspire and hold to as far as possible.

Dr Eleanor Hughes

14/12/2024 01:56:53 pm

Hello Nick. Your blog raises a critical question about the balance between freedom of expression and protecting individuals from harm. As an academic who studies the intersection of public policy and social inequality, I argue that allowing and supporting freedom of expression is not only essential for democratic health but also the most effective way to protect vulnerable people and groups in the UK.

Freedom of expression provides the marginalized with the tools to challenge entrenched power structures. Historically, social progress has been driven by the voices of those deemed disruptive or offensive at the time. For example, the suffragette movement, which fought for women’s right to vote, was labelled subversive and often silenced. Similarly, the LGBTQ+ rights movement faced widespread hostility and censorship, yet freedom of expression allowed advocates to shift public discourse and demand legal protections.

More recently, the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK has used freedom of expression to expose systemic racism and police misconduct. These movements highlight a crucial point: silencing controversial or uncomfortable ideas disproportionately affects marginalized communities, as they are often the ones challenging the status quo. Without the ability to speak freely, their struggles remain invisible, and the systemic barriers they face remain unchallenged.

Furthermore, restricting speech on the grounds of "harm" is a slippery slope. Harm is subjective, and determining what constitutes harmful speech can easily devolve into silencing dissent. This is particularly concerning when those in power define what is harmful. Consider the 2020 controversy surrounding the Public Order Act, which was used to arrest protesters under broad interpretations of "causing distress." Such measures risk stifling the very voices that need amplification.

Instead, the UK should focus on fostering a culture of open dialogue and critical thinking. This involves equipping individuals with media literacy and tools to counter hate speech through reasoned argument, rather than suppression. Initiatives like the UK’s "Respect for All" education program, which promotes understanding and empathy, are excellent examples of proactive measures that protect vulnerable groups without curbing freedom of expression.

In short, protecting freedom of expression is not at odds with safeguarding vulnerable groups - it is the mechanism by which they achieve visibility and advocate for change. A society that prioritizes open dialogue over censorship is one that empowers all its members, particularly those who are most at risk of marginalization.

16/12/2024 04:49:35 pm

Hi Eleanor. Thank you for posting such a detailed, thoughtful response with great examples of where freedom of speech has resulted in radical social change. I agree wholeheartedly with your stance on 'equipping individuals (and, I would add, groups) with media literacy and tools to counter hate speech through (and, I would add, vigorous) reasoned argument. This is very different to the current UK government's approach to 'Non-Crime Hate Incidents' which are, in my view, a damaging and dangerous threat to freedom of expression and democracy.

Doug Edmands

14/12/2024 02:02:07 pm

This blog nails the complexity here. Harm isn’t always clear-cut. Who decides what’s harmful? I’ve learned that balancing honesty with empathy is a constant challenge. Perhaps authentic community isn’t about raw truth, but shared vulnerability and the courage to have tough conversations with care.

16/12/2024 06:43:28 pm

Hi Doug. Yes - I don't always find it easy to get the balance right. I try to speak and write with clarity, courage and compassion, but am sometimes too cautious when I should be more bold, and sometimes insensitive when I should show greater empathy. 'Tough conversations with care' is a good way of expressing what, I believe, we need instead of the current silencing instinct.

Candice Merton

15/12/2024 03:31:17 pm

Great blog, Nick. This country’s democracy is sleepwalking into oblivion. Most people don’t seem to be aware of what the government is doing in silencing free speech. Most of those who are seem too apathetic or scared to do anything to stop it.

Edmund Burke said this in 1795: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” How right he was. Keep speaking up Nick while we still have chance to do it. It won’t be long before blog comments like this will be censored. 🤐

16/12/2024 06:47:11 pm

Thanks Candice. Yes, I believe we are treading in a very dangerous direction. I was encouraged today when Lord Nick Herbert, the chairman of the College of Policing in the UK, urged the UK Government to consider scrapping Non-Crime Hate Incident recording. I hope more 'good people' will speak up and lobby their government representatives on such a critical issue for freedom of expression, community cohesion and our democratic future.

Truth-telling

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Truth-telling

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives