Free Speech for Writers: Balancing Act or Absolute Right?

Writers are the professionals who are the most prolific at criticizing their peers who write controversial content. Yes, “professionals” – writing is as much a learned and skilled endeavor as is law, engineering or medicine. It is trite that some of us venture into the realm of content writing which offends. The affront of the content to the reader may be intentional or unintentional. The fact remains, the content comes across to the reader as an insult to his or her religion, culture or being. The criticism of controversial literary work is where the indictment on the content by the reader or critic reveals the perceived value judgments made by the dissatisfied. Usually the critique to controversial content is premised on the reader’s own pre-conceived ideas about society and life. It is not ruled out that the reader may disagree with content written whilst being impartial and basing the assessment of the writer’s content on abstract moral or social objections. But statistically at least, the majority of critiques that follow a so-called controversial piece of writing, originate due to the fact that the content is at odds with the reader’s frame of reference.

The adage “the truth will set you free” is apposite here. Why should any reader with genuine convictions about his or her social and ideological place in society feel offended by content which makes inroads into the purported sanctity of dignity and reputation. If I am overweight, should satire about “fat human pigs” offend? If I am Asian, should comments about me having “squint eyes” upset? If I am African American, should a statement about me being an “imported slave” hurt my feelings? The freedom of writers to write anything without fear or prejudice is necessary to enable the challenging of traditional perceptions. An attack on a specified group’s’ dignity or reputation in written content can only be objectionable where the addressee of the perceived insult is identified by name and context with absolute certainty. If this is not the case, then the written content which causes offense is nothing more than the expression of a point of view held by the writer. It is after all only one person’s view against the masses which do not share that opinion. The ability of writers to offend gets a whole new meaning when one challenges religious beliefs systems. Salman Rushdie demonstrated to us how written content which confront traditional beliefs can inflame nations to react and condemn a writer for creative license. The critique of or even attack of another’s religion should not offend the particular believer. If one holds your religious beliefs dear and with conviction of the truth of those beliefs, even a scathing assault on those beliefs should not deter one’s knowledge that the written content that offends, is contrary to one’s beliefs and should therefore be rejected as nonsense.

The freedom to write about anything and anyone should be an absolute right, limited only in respect of the prohibition on the publication of untruths about an individual. Other than this limitation, satire, opinions and content about any individual should be allowed. As for writer’s content on society, religion and life, no limitation should exist, even if the content is not accurate and blatantly incorrect. To deny a writer the freedom to express views on a subject matter merely because if offends would be the suicide of reason. Next time you are offended by written content, remember the fact that you are bringing into your judgment, your entire history of social, educational and personal experiences. Not exactly abstract and detached. None of us can truly be detached from our social, religious and personal context. It is but an impossibility to read content without referencing what you read against your own construction of correct and acceptable content. Therefore the readers will continue to critique written content in the name of prejudice and personal offense and writers must accept the criticisms received with open arms. The criticism reports to the writer that his or her work has been read, the obvious point of writing. Task accomplished.

Writers either write for themselves or for the targeted readers. Those that write for themselves are often the ones that will dare to challenge conventional wisdom or beliefs. Whether you are the former or the latter writer, you are implored to guard against the acquiescence that writing for the popular view brings. It is the privilege of the writer to open minds and free the soul. Do not become the voice of socially acceptable rhetoric. Explore your own boundaries. Embrace the possibility that all the diverse beliefs out there make the world a better place, with you, the writer as its guardian or persecutor, depending on where you see yourself. And lastly, never fear criticism from the reader. If your views are challenged by the popular will, then you are writing for yourself and no one has to agree with your opinion, theory or conjecture. Writing is the foundation of all knowledge.