Diluting our Most Basic (Censored)
I read a disturbing column by George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley in the Washington Post last week that described how western nations are slowly curbing free speech, what he calls “the very right that laid the foundation for Western civilization.” The disturbing aspect of his allegations is that proof of each is obvious, and we’re silently acquiescing to it.
The impulse to limit what others can say about us or about something we feel strongly is, I would suspect, a deeply seeded instinct—embedded in our animal nature. But my trying to control the speech of others results, eventually, in someone being able to control mine. But we’re not talking here about my trying to control speech of others, we’re talking about governments, with all their coercive and punitive powers. One of the most difficult responsibilities in all democracies is to defend freedom for others even when it’s extremely distasteful. It reminds me of John Adams’ court-room defense of the soldiers who killed colonists during the Boston Massacre. Already deeply and publicly opposed to their cause, Adams defended them at personal and career risk primarily because he felt they had the right to counsel. Although the trial was not about freedom of speech, Adams’ courage in defense of the rights of others, is a challenge to all of us as the West attempts to move further on the road to restricting speech.
Turley described several areas where governments in the West are apparently responding to our natural instinct to control others. But it’s gift wrapped in a way that it’s hard, even impolite, to reject: It’s all about protecting the feelings of others. But regardless of the packaging and the good will of those who seek these limitations and the sensitive natures of those who would be protected, such limits erode freedom for all of us.
Turley identified four areas:
1) ”Speech is blasphemous”
He argues that, “This is the oldest threat to free speech, but it has experienced something of a comeback in the 21st century.”
2) “Speech is hateful”
“In the United States, hate speech is presumably protected under the First Amendment. However, hate-crime laws often redefine hateful expression as a criminal act.”
3) “Speech is discriminatory”
“Perhaps the most rapidly expanding limitation on speech is found in anti-discrimination laws. Many Western countries have extended such laws to public statements deemed insulting or derogatory to any group, race or gender.”
4) “Speech is deceitful”
“While we have always prosecuted people who lie to achieve financial or other benefits, some argue that the government can outlaw any lie, regardless of whether the liar secured any economic gain.” (I am particularly frightened by this one as I worry that if this were ever enacted in the US, we would have no politicians “free” to serve in the government.)
Turley again, “Whether speech is deemed imflammatory (sic) or hateful or discriminatory or simply false, society is denying speech rights in the name of tolerance, enforcing mutual respect through categorical censorship.”
While it is wonderful to think about a world where there is no blasphemous, hateful, discriminatory or deceitful speech, the only legitimate way to get there is to change the hearts of men and women so they don’t want to use such speech. Any rules that we create to control speech, threaten all of our freedoms.
Something to talk about, while (and if) we still can.
