On tolerance and free speech

In January I wrote in defence of TopTV’s right to have a porn channel. Central to that argument was the right to switch off.

So when I hear people talk about boycotting Orson Scott Card, what I hear is really a similar sort of thing. I don’t approve of Card’s homophobia, or the fact that he militates for homophobic causes, so I’m not going to buy a ticket to see Ender's Game.

Now this may sound intolerant, and to that I say, so? Intolerance can be an engine of progress.

People choosing to not tolerate being treated like second class citizens is why slavery is illegal worldwide, why apartheid ended, why it is no longer okay to beat up gay people for being gay.

You don’t defeat social ills by tolerating them, but by the refusal to do so.

And refusing to tolerate something isn’t the same as advocating violence. Martin Luther King Jnr refused to tolerate racism in the US, so what did he do about it?

He staged boycotts, sit ins, marches and suchlike. He used peaceful means to end intolerable injustices.

That doesn’t mean tolerance is always bad, nor that intolerance is always good but rather that one should consider what it is you are being asked to tolerate or not.

Is that a threat to Card’s free speech? Well, no because the right to free speech is not the same as the right to an audience.

Obviously, my reasoning here also applies to myself. I am strongly anti-religion, and I have the right to express my views in that regard.

I do not pretend that everything I have to say will be universally popular, or even correct, but I do have the right to say it.

I do not, however, have the right to compel others to listen to anything I have to say. There is always the right to switch off.

This is one of the reasons why I oppose any religion or group that punishes apostasy, because the right to simply leave is integral to everything else.