I read in the New Yorker about Bangladeshi bloggers being murdered. I am interested in the concept of free speech and restrained speech and polite speech and abusive tirades. I realize that psychologists tell me that I can have control over my emotions but when people I love or respect tell me that I am a filthy pig who makes them want to puke, I often let my emotions go negative. So, I have a concept of free speech and I also have a concept of restrained speech.
I read the other day that a man in another country faces the possibility of a long jail sentence for insulting the king's dog. The New Yorker article says that Bangladeshi minister of information believes that the government has a duty to prosecute those that "offend the sentiments of the faithful." That seems like a very broad duty to me. I am not of that country but I imagine that for people in most countries, speech and ideas will flow better if sentiments can at least be questioned or opposed without getting prosecuted for questioning or opposition.
I meet with two groups of educated, senior men weekly. They discuss difficult and complicated matters and they don't insult or provoke each other to attack physically or set gangs on each other. It is likely that we follow social and biological protocols that keep things from breaking down. It is possible that we just don't care enough about sets of beliefs or the opinions of others in the group to get riled up. I watched this Monty Python skit along with more than 7 million other people. It brought to my attention the concepts of verbal abuse and of mere contradiction of the ten-year-olds sort repeating "did" and "didn't" alternately ad infinitum.
I have read that if a husband frequently emphasizes his version of his wife's faults, his right to free speech and his choice of language can damage his marriage and his wife's health and her life. The same can happen if it is the woman going on against his worth, his accomplishments and his ideas and attitudes. I have been listening to Prof. Mark Leary, a professor of psychology at Duke. He listed five basics of human life starting with a need to feel accepted by others. His 2nd characteristic was a desire to influence others, which we all mostly do with various sorts of talk. The recent presidential debates are an example of a complex speech act where each person tries to be intelligently aggressive and outstanding while staying within the bounds of an undefined civility.
--
