Sweet Land of Liberty?
In a country proclaiming freedom of speech as its preeminent 1st Amendment constitutional right, we now seek to silence voices instead of protecting them.
College students protest to cancel speakers with “incorrect” viewpoints. A counter-protest is an opposing speech. A cancel protest is a suppression of speech that is worse than any expression of speech.
What happened to the good old days when a Jewish lawyer from the notoriously liberal American Civil Liberties Union fought to allow neo-Nazis to march through a Chicago suburb where many Holocaust survivors lived? What about the Black ACLU attorney who protected the KKK membership list from the police?
The ACLU was protecting neo-Nazis and the KKK from laws and institutions used to disenfranchise minority groups. The ACLU must have detested what these groups stood for but understood the value of free speech exceeds the harm caused by the speech.
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market
The neo-Nazi and KKK speech had the exact opposite result of its intended effect. The more they broadcast their detestable positions, the more the public vilified them and protected their targets. We should let history repeat itself and allow the ignorant and hateful to expose themselves and be subjected to the court of public opinion.
Of course, I am not suggesting a boundless, free-for-all. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater (actually, you may be able to). We need to cover the eyes and ears of children to protect them from information they are not prepared to discern. Can we approach disagreeable speech like pornography? Judging by its availability, we are far more tolerant of pornography than distasteful words.
The Contrarian View
Instead of suppressing, accept your antagonist’s voice. If they are as evil or stupid as you believe, their positions will collapse under their own weight.
In response to student protests over objectionable speakers, no less of an authority than President Obama said, “…you don’t have to be fearful of somebody spouting bad ideas. Just out-argue them. Beat ’em. Make the case as to why they’re wrong. Win over adherents. That’s how things work in a democracy.”
Additionally, we refine our righteous beliefs through exposure to opposing viewpoints. The echo chamber does not challenge you to develop your thinking. Those who listen to Rachel Maddow and Harris Faulkner probably have the most considered views.
Liars!
What about the well-packaged disinformation and outright lies appearing on the internet? The silver-tonged devils create an air of legitimacy that fools many. Disinformation is a serious issue, but it is the cost of free speech.
Any cure involving censorship or correction is likely worse than the disease. Who shall we appoint as arbiter? We certainly do not want those we elect in control; they are some of the chief perpetrators of misinformation.
Can we leave something so precious in the hands of a for-profit entity? I do not feel any better about that than I do about corporations protecting the civil liberties of inmates in for-profit, private prisons.
What about the fair and balanced fourth estate? Any casual observer knows the media is here to inflame, not inform. When I see a news report today, my initial instinct is to wonder what the truth is. Even the highly respected National Public Radio is not immune. One of its editors criticized it for biased reporting. In the interest of balance, here is NPR’s official response.
Alas, there is no solution other than the original: let information flow freely. It will be messy but better than any alternative.
________________________________________________________
Be it a belief in freedom of speech, letting your opponent’s words fail them, or improving your thoughts, do not silence but receive your adversary’s voice.