Don’t Silence, Give Them a Megaphone

Sweet Land of Liberty?
In a country proclaiming freedom of speech as one of its preeminent values, we seek to silence voices instead of listening to them.

College students protest to cancel speakers with positions they are opposed to. News programs are now echo chambers for one side’s political views. When a panelist with an opposing viewpoint is included, the resulting “discussion” is unintelligible as they talk over each other. Do you wonder how much they must pay the conservative member (i.e., sacrificial lamb) of the View to endure her daily flogging?

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 secrecy of the KKK membership list from the police?

The ACLU must have detested what these groups stood for but believed the value of free speech exceeds the harm caused by the speech. The ACLU was protecting Neo-Nazis and the KKK from laws and institutions that had been and were being used to disenfranchise minorities in our country.

Alas, not even the ACLU is exempt from today’s cancel culture. David Goldberger, the Jewish lawyer referenced above, worries the ACLU is more concerned with progressive politics than free speech.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Market
The neo-Nazi and KKK speech had the opposite result of its intended effect. The more they broadcast their detestable positions, the more they were vilified and rejected. The seriously misguided now have social media to spew their venom but they are no more effective in generating support than in the days of public marches and rallies.

We should let history repeat itself and allow the ignorant and hateful to expose themselves and be subjected to the court of public opinion. Suppressing speech turns the silenced into martyrs. They become more famous for not being allowed to talk than for the content of their message. Speakers who would have attracted a small audience receive national media exposure for having their speech canceled.

Of course, I am not suggesting a boundless, free-for-all. We need to cover the eyes and ears of children to protect them from information they are not prepared to discern. Can we approach hateful/disagreeable speech like pornography and let the viewer decide? Judging by what is readily available in every medium, very few of us want any limitations on pornography.

The Contrarian View
Instead of suppressing, amplify your enemy’s voice. If they are as evil or stupid as you believe, their arguments will collapse under their own weight. In response to student protests over “offensive” 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.”

Moreover, our righteous beliefs benefit from exposure to our opponent’s arguments. The echo chamber does not challenge you to develop your thinking. Those who listen to both conservative firebrand Sean Hannity and liberal rabble-rouser Al Sharpton, have the most considered views even if they do not agree with either commentator.

Are you worried extremists will poison unsophisticated minds and make followers of the uneducated? Are you protecting the voting-age electorate from certain influences under the belief they cannot properly judge for themselves? Is this position any nobler (or less abhorrent) than the ones taken by those who sought to protect our democracy by subjecting voters to literacy, poll taxes, or land ownership requirements?

Be it a belief in freedom of speech, letting your opponent’s words fail them, or improving your ideas; do not silence, but amplify your adversary’s voice.