Death of Freedom of Speech?

[LazarusHeart]

In my country there is a new book coming out. Although not specifically written by the woman involved, its purpose is to share this woman's side of the story, in regards to the violent murder of her twin boys several years ago. Although suspected guilty of the murder she has never been convicted. In my country many people have protested against this book and have successfully threatened to boycott retailers who choose to stock it.

I am interested in the perspective of non-NZer's on this issue. Would you consider this a violation against freedom of speech? I certainly do. The death of the twin boys was absolutely horrible but this woman has not been convicted of their deaths, so shouldn't she be innocent until proven guilty? Also, regardless of her guilt or innocence surely she has the right to tell her story?

Many of the boycotters argue that they have the right to protest. How is it right though for one human right to infringe upon another?

Even if she was found to be guilty, I would be interested to understand her perspective on the issue, because isn't it essential that we understand why some people fall through the cracks in our society and turn to violence so we can understand what in our societies needs to change?

I was previously proud to live in a country that believes in freedom of speech. I feel ashamed that so many of my countries citizens believe that freedom of speech is conditional upon behaviour.

What do you think?

 

[magister343]

If the state took any action to suppress the book it would be a violation of the right of freedom of speech.

If the state took any action to suppress those who wish to raise their voice in protest against the book it would be a violation of freedom of speech.


There is nothing wring with the owners of bookstores deciding it is not in their best interest to stock such controversial novels.

There is nothing wrong with large segments of the populace expressing their view that it would not be in the best interest of book sellers to stock such controversial novels.

A conspiracy among all major publishers or sellers of the book would be a borderline case, but I see no evidence of that happening.

I don't see anything stopping her from releasing the story for free online, only from making money off it in certain venues.

The right to free speech does not mean that others have to go out of their way to provide a venue for your speech, or that others must choose to listen. The populace may be acting stupidly, but I see no violation of anyone's rights. There is no freedom of speech issue here.

 

[LazarusHeart]

Thank you for reply. You've made some important points.

It is important to mention that this book has not been banned, and there are a few retailers that are choosing to stock it. Also the woman whose story is being told is not actually the author of the book and her and the author have stated publicly that she will be receiving none of the proceeds of the sale.

I guess what bothers me most about this whole situation, is not that retailers choose not to stock this book, which I acknowledge is their right, but that they appear to be bowing to social pressure. I fully appreciate that having the right of freedom of speech does not mean that others should have to listen, but I don't think it is fair that those that don't want to listen feel that they can dictate what books get sold in their local bookshop simply because they don't want to read it. Surely they could just choose not to buy the book but by pushing retailers into the decision not to stock the book limits the access for those who would choose to read it, therefore further restricting the woman's chances of her story being heard.

 

[Barnabas]

It's a business and as they say the customer is always right. Book stores are in a tight spot at the moment, less and less people are reading and those who do read are starting to pick up E-Books and E-Book readers. A small business really couldn't afford to lose it's customers and larger wouldn't be able to risk it's reputation.

 

[InvisibleJim]

It's only rational for a book store not to stock the book if they can't sell it. However, if the controversy leads to more sales later then it will be sold.

 

[Faye]

You could also say that people are exercising their right to free speech by boycotting the book.

 

[Enedlhach]

This whole situation seems like a demonstration of freedom of speech and freedom to operate business as one pleases. You can at least be encurage that freedom is thriving here, even though you don't like the outcome all that much.

 

[LazarusHeart]

This whole situation seems like a demonstration of freedom of speech and freedom to operate business as one pleases. You can at least be encurage that freedom is thriving here, even though you don't like the outcome all that much.

Maybe you're right, maybe its just that I don't like the outcome that I feel its a violation of freedom of speech. Personally, I would never feel like it is right to try and stop others from reading something just because I consider it objectionable. I also feel that the boycotters have made judgements on someone who should be considered "innocent until proven guilty". However I do see the point you all have been making in regards to the boycotters having their rights to free speech too.

 

[yndsu]

Nah, that is not the death of freedom of speech. More like the renewal of it really.
The person who wrote it had the rigth to write it. No-one tried to stop her, by the info presented.
But as people dont want to see that, they excercised freedom of speech to go out agains the
book that they dont want to see sold in stores.
And some of the retailers did listen to them and some didnt.

Now if the government would have been banning the book from being sold then that could have
been (seen) as violation of the freedom of speech.

 

[bickelz]

Yeah, freedom of speech doesn't apply to corporations who want to "regulate" it within their company. It's just that the feds can't prosecute you for it.