Free Speech And Why It Matters

by Andrew Doyle

in the midst of the hysteria there has been little opportunity for sober discussion of the issues, and many people have been discouraged out of fear of reprisals. Cancel culture does not seek to criticise, but to punish, and leaves little scope for redemption.

Internet does't forget

Unpleasant speech can provoke scorn, ridicule and even ostracism, none of which constitutes an infringement of human rights. It is only when speech is met with threats, censorship, defamation, harassment, intimidation, violence or police investigation that freedom becomes compromised. These are the tools of cancel culture.

It only takes a few instances of ‘cancellation’ in any given workplace to create the kind of atmosphere in which remaining employees are intimidated into toeing the line. This is not a direct violation of free speech – companies are entitled to insist on speech codes, and those who work for them are entitled to resign if they disapprove – but frequently employers are capitulating to complaints that have been made maliciously in order to punish people for their opinions rather than any genuine breach of contract.

Fear

Like ‘No Platforming’ – the practice of denying platforms to individuals with controversial views – most of the targets of cancel culture are pre-emptive. University student unions are able to claim that they never ban or disinvite contentious speakers, precisely because such individuals would never be approached in the first place.

cancel culture works by an unwritten rubric. The job losses and public shaming are merely the visible manifestations of a broader problem. Many who are judged guilty of committing thoughtcrime are simply disqualified from opportunities for future work and, in most cases, will never even know. Like an ex-convict whose former transgressions hamper him from ever finding meaningful employment due to criminal disclosure checks, anyone who has ever expressed an unfashionable opinion on social media is likely to be scuppered by the most cursory of Internet searches.

Invisible

It is my contention that any such conflict is illusory, and that free speech is the only way to ensure that marginalised people are heard. To set limits on speech in order to improve tolerance is like attempting to extinguish a fire with gasoline. It infantilises those who are singled out as requiring insulation from distressing ideas, undermines the principle of equality under the law, and frustrates the means by which injustices in society can be effectively overcome.

Hmm. Not 100%

The idea that certain beliefs ought to be ring-fenced from criticism and ridicule is the very antithesis of liberalism. In any case, how we determine who might qualify for such special protection will very much depend upon the subjective judgement of those in power at any given moment. For instance, there are many who argue that the perceived rise of Islamophobia might be redressed with prohibitions against the criticism of Islam. They have forgotten that the very same logic could be applied by unscrupulous governments of the future who wish to avoid being held to account.

Protection

In an age when ‘lived experience’ is often valued more than objective truth, the core tenets of liberalism – due process and free speech – are bound to be at risk. ‘Lived experience’ is what we used to call ‘anecdotal evidence’, a fallacious form of reasoning that has misled many into believing that ours is an essentially oppressive society, overrun by fascists and undergirded by white supremacy.

As ever, there is a kernel of truth in the lie. Fascism has by no means been eliminated, and studies have suggested that the far right is experiencing a resurgence. While this is undeniably concerning, the same evidence also tells us that such sympathies remain very much at the periphery. Those who insist that fascism has become normalised have a tendency to discard, or entirely misrepresent, statistics that do not reflect their pessimistic view.

Nip them in the bud?

At a time of endemic oppression, it was only through speech and protest that the societal mechanisms for the emancipation of minorities and women could be actuated.

google

With contemporary politics now dominated by issues of identity, it is sometimes difficult to detach the arguments for and against freedom of speech from the person who is making them.

interesting. identity can't detach from arguments

those with perceived ‘privilege’ are less entitled to opine on the subject. This is why a defence of free speech by a straight, white male is likely to be met with the objection that he is unqualified to apprehend the potential harm of words. But when the same arguments are advanced by a black lesbian, as they so often have been, there is nowhere left for the identity-fixated critic to retreat. Put simply, if you frame your counter-arguments in terms of the immutable characteristics of the person you oppose, you are setting yourself up for failure. At the same time, you obfuscate the actual issue in question.

identity. who can talk about the issue. it is true though some privileged should not talk about how good they handled a bad situation..

Ideas cannot be ‘owned’ by any individual, merely articulated with greater or lesser degrees of success. An argument stands or falls on its own merits.

hmm

In most cases, it is safest to assume that those who commit acts of which we disapprove must believe them to be good. Similarly, opinions that we find repellent often originate from the best of intentions. Once we understand this, we unlock the potential for meaningful dialogue.

true

When we are offended, we should think carefully about why we have chosen to take offence and, more importantly, whether or not the offence was meant. In many cases, those who would wish us harm are explicit in their objectives. After all, an expletive-ridden insult is unlikely to be thrown in the spirit of benevolence. But even in such instances, is it right that our personal sensibilities should be the justification for curbing the speech of our traducer?

offence?

this is the inevitable corollary of years of risk-averse parenting and teaching strategies, as well as the implementation of anti-bullying measures that have a tendency to catastrophise. As Greg Lukianoff argues, ‘People all over the globe are coming to expect emotional and intellectual comfort as though it were a right. This is precisely what you would expect when you train a generation to believe that they have a right not to be offended. Eventually, they stop demanding freedom of speech and start demanding freedom from speech’. An overdiagnostic culture has reframed distress and emotional pain as forms of mental illness, rather than aspects of a healthy human existence. To feel upset is not an aberration; it is a sign that we are alive.

interesting take!

Once offence has been taken, there are two likely reactions: we might feel that the slight was deserved, and that we should modify our own behaviour in order to avoid similar incidents in the future; alternatively, we might decide that the fault lies with the offender. In these cases, we might seek an apology, retaliate through criticism or mockery, or seek to stop this person from speaking. It is this latter impulse that explains the appeal of censorship as a means to safeguard the feelings of ourselves and others.

two responses for offence

To recognise that there are aspects of existence that offend us is not to suggest that the feeling of offence is meaningless. There is nothing wrong with being offended, and it can often spur us into action when it comes to redressing injustice as we see it. That said, if the source of our offence is a general discomfort that others do not behave or speak in accordance with our own specific values, we are engaging in a kind of solipsism that is best avoided, not least because there is no end to the endeavour. This is the kind of mentality that sees people take umbrage on behalf of others, an increasingly common phenomenon by which speech is judged to be ‘offensive’ even when there is no evidence of any offence being caused.

mentality. when no evidence of offence is being caused.

A compulsion to change the world around us to suit our personal sensibilities is evinced by the tabloid columnist who calls for a film to be banned, the heckler at the comedy club who is outraged at the topic of the joke, the member of staff at a publishing firm who threatens to strike over a ‘problematic’ author, the student activist who sets off fire alarms to prevent a visiting speaker from upsetting his peers. We understand the impulse because we all feel it from time to time. However, to make the leap from the natural revulsion we experience at certain alternative worldviews to actively silencing them is to surrender to the authoritarian tendency. By doing so, we degrade ourselves by subordinating our reason to baser instincts.

degrade ourselves by subordinating our reason to baser instincts

Although I disapprove of this course of action, I understand the strength of feeling behind it.

why this book is good

The first is that there is no longer any worthwhile discussion to be had over this subject, although we know from polling that a substantial minority remain unpersuaded of the validity of gay marriage. This isn’t equivalent to hosting a debate about whether or not slavery is morally acceptable, a crude comparison which is nonetheless often made. Nobody would think to hold such a debate now, because the matter was resolved in the nineteenth century. The issue of gay rights, on the other hand, has developed comparatively recently and with unprecedented speed. If those who support equal marriage are, as they claim to be, ‘on the right side of history’, they have nothing to fear from patience.

interesting. gay marriage & slavery

The range of opinions that are deemed societally acceptable at any given moment is known as the ‘Overton Window’, and its tendency to shift according to time and location should tell us something about the cultural specificity of ethical norms.

overton window

nobody has ever been persuaded out of a deeply held conviction by force. Gay rights and respectability were not secured by criminalising people who used obsolete and offensive language, or ensuring that those who failed to adapt to changing mores were deprived of a livelihood and publicly shamed. This is the mistake made by those who indulge in cancel culture, most notably the more extreme trans activists whose tactics have generated so much resentment in recent years and, arguably, have done more harm than good for their cause.

slavery led to a civil war in the US and the war didn't even conclude which side won. up till this day the divide is still obvious. this point may not be valid.

First Principles (1862) by the sociologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, in which he suggests that ‘when passing judgment on the opinions of others’, we should be willing to concede that there is ‘a soul of truth in things erroneous’. Without humility, we are prone to misconstruing the fallibilities of others as signifiers of an intrinsic moral deficiency, what the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks described as a ‘pathological dualism’ that divides humanity into ‘the unimpeachably good’ and ‘the irredeemably bad’.

very true. a soul of truth in things erroneous

The history of censorship shows us the folly of this approach, which is why the metaphor of sunlight being the best disinfectant is so commonly heard. Milton envisaged this as a battlefield, with Truth and Falsehood as the antagonists. ‘Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?’ We are far better placed to know and overcome evil if we are acquainted with its essence, and the best way to achieve this is to listen and to read.

google the history?

If we grant leeway for bad ideas to go unchallenged, they are able to sustain the illusion of incontrovertibility among their devotees. This has never been more obviously the case than in the age of the Internet. When social media tech giants choose to censor certain topics, they invariably sweep them elsewhere, usually to the uncharted recesses of cyberspace where the light of reason cannot hope to penetrate.

"the light of reason cannot hope to penetrate". there is no light on a lot of sectors. the light is very contextual in a lot of situations.

In forcing the disinvitation of a speaker, the protesters have deprived themselves of the chance to prove that their opposition is sound. Even if one could say for certain that the protesters were in the right, unless they are able to explain and defend their view they are merely holding what John Stuart Mill described as ‘a dead dogma, not a living truth’. In open debate they might expose the flaws of the speaker’s stance and, better still, persuade others of their way of thinking. Furthermore, the stifling of speech can have the unintended consequence of making martyrs out of those who have been silenced and enabling them to portray themselves as oppressed tellers of uncomfortable truths. It has a glamourising effect that, if anything, enhances their appeal.

what if there is no debate? and there is no aftermaths either? what is the point of debate if there is no consequences?

In addition, it generates resentment among those who have had the decision of whether or not to attend the event taken away from them. The protesters have effectively acted in loco parentis, infantilising their peers by judging on their behalf what forms of speech would be hurtful for them to hear.

true

The implication in our imaginary scenario, whether intended or not, is that gay students are compromised by listening to a speaker express disapproval of their lifestyle, and that they are incapable of presenting a counterargument. Most gay people would rather not be patronised in this way. Nor does it help anyone to pretend that the debate is about gay people’s ‘right to exist’. Such histrionic straw men have no place in adult discussion.

what if they bring out god though? contextual

If the protesters were likely to be offended by the event, they could simply have opted not to attend. If they were particularly incensed, they might have organised a peaceful protest to raise awareness of the content of the speaker’s address, and let their peers make their own choices. By sitting in judgement on what is best for others, they ultimately weaken their own enterprise.

so let them preach inside but you can sit outside and do nothing? peacefully?

The policy of ‘No Platforming’ originates from the National Union of Students (NUS) conference of April 1974, in which a resolution was passed that would debar ‘openly racist or fascist organisations or societies’ from speaking on campus. Such measures were understandable at a time when racist groups had a degree of popular support, although as Brendan O’Neill points out, even at the time of its inauguration there were concerns that the policy was likely to expand and had the ‘potential to generate other targets for censorship’.

well what if the trend has come back again? that was 1974 and thirty odd years later the light of reason didn't do its job apparently. what else do you expect people to do? i appreciate about the fact that you took a more reasonable angle to this issue but a lot of anger will be generated if it is still not good enough or it is not solving the issue (like at all). and the more it accumulate the more powerful the explosion is when shit hits the fan.

Now that racist and fascist groups are universally despised in civilised society, the prohibition only makes sense if we artificially expand the definitions of these terms to incorporate anyone whose ideas fail to live up to contemporary values, particularly in relation to modern-day ‘social justice’. This is known as ‘concept creep’, and it explains why words such as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ are now so promiscuously applied.

despised yet still doing harm as it pleases

There is considerable evidence of the ways in which various terms – e.g., ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’, ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘transphobe’, ‘misogynist’ – have become so nebulous that their potency has been irredeemably reduced.

that's true

The Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau claimed that ‘freedom of expression is not without limits. We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.’ Like the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, condolences in the aftermath were tainted by a lingering sense that the victims were to blame, and that by expressing themselves a little too freely they had forfeited their freedom to exist.

If they dont like it then why dont they just leave them alone though. Just leave them alone nobody will ever get hurt. You know they are extremists. We have very different upbringing and belief system apparently

But in order to criticise Charlie Hebdo, as is anyone’s right, one must first understand the subject of one’s criticism. To excoriate these cartoonists for racism is to lock horns with a phantom enemy. If satirists are to self-censor due to the possibility of misinterpretation, we may as well abandon the genre altogether.

The more you emphasise freedom of speech with extreme daring statements. The more it will backfire at the end. Eventually you will hold the straw of "freedom of speech" trembling your ass off while the other side plays a different kind of game altogether. The basis and root of the belief systems are not the same. You cant use you "reason" to fight their "rules". In their system "reason" is not part of thE main foundation. Stop waving it like a magic wand, it is doing nothing to them.

It goes without saying that total objectivity is neither possible nor desirable when it comes to professional criticism, but it would appear that a significant proportion now see their role as censuring art that they perceive to be ‘problematic’.

?