by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
On a recent thread, the topic of politically correct speech as it relates to free speech came up. As with many of the more interesting threads on this blog, the topic came about from meandering rather than the subject proper of the thread. The subject was brought back to fore in my mind this morning when I read this: How Free Speech Died on Campus by Sohrab Ahmari, published on The Wall Street Journal (online.wsj.com). It seems there are a lot of misconceptions about what constitutes free speech, the limitations thereon and the consequences thereof.
The core of the American free speech right and tradition is codified in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law [. . . ] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[.]”
The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 19, states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
This has implications that apply to public discourse. Let us consider these implications.
What is free speech? I think the Universal Declaration gets to the heart of the idea with the words “freedom of opinion and expression”. You are free to think what you like and express your thoughts. The marketplace of ideas – a consequence of freedom of speech – relies upon this. Everyone says what they like and may the best idea/argument win. However, that being said, there are some limitations on free speech that are universally accepted in domestic and international jurisprudence. Namely the exceptions of defamation (lying about someone for gain and/or profit) and incitement language (encouraging others to violence or panic). Many countries also recognize sedition (calling for the overthrow of government) as unacceptable as well. Consider the difference in these prohibitions and the different ways of addressing the 1st Amendment: the absolutist approach, the categorical approach and the balancing of interests approach.
All three approaches allow for restrictions on free speech. The absolutist approach takes the stance that literally no law prohibiting speech is permissible . . . except when the words are so intimately tied to a specific action like inciting panic or contracting for an illegal purpose as to be inseparable from the otherwise prohibited act itself. The categorical approach attempts to define what speech is or is not protected by assigning categories such as obscenity, fighting words, commercial speech and political speech. The balancing of interests approach in every case courts should weigh the individual’s interest in free expression against a valid governmental interest in restricting the speech in question with a thumb on the scale of justice in favor of free speech. Most modern jurists adopt either the categorical or the balancing approach as the absolutist approach is impractical. Personally, I’m somewhere in between those two analytical schools: circumstances should be considered, but some speech should be categorically protected like political free speech.
Defamation and incitement have sound public policy behind them. In the case of defamation, it arises from the long respected notion in torts that someone should not be able to lie about another to their detriment and/or for the defamer’s benefit. It’s a matter of equity. It has nothing to do with your feelings being hurt. There is a separate tort recognized in some jurisdictions called “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”. It is a very specific, very hard to prove tort where someone says things to or about someone with specific foreknowledge and the intent to cause the hearer or subject to suffer extreme emotional distress. It is a wilful tort and you must prove the speaker had mens rea (guilty mind) in causing the extreme emotional distress.
In the case of incitement, everyone knows the old trope about “yelling fire in a crowded theater”. Inciting panic or violence often ends up with innocent bystanders getting harmed either physically or by having their property destroyed and that is a matter of public safety as well as equity. Sedition, on the other hand, is a “political crime”. In the United States, a particularly odd political crime too considering the express language of the Declaration of Independence.
However, with these above noted exceptions, free speech means anything goes basically. You are allowed to think and express your thoughts. This carries some broader implications.
As all people are free to express their thoughts and opinions, you are certainly going to hear things you disagree with or disapprove of or maybe even find insulting or offensive. That is simply a cost of the freedom. If you value free speech then you accept that you will be disagreed with, insulted and offended at some time. If you don’t accept this fact, then you value freedom of speech as long as you approve of what others say first and that, by definition, is not free. If you cannot accept this and try to oppress others simply for having a different, insulting or offensive opinion, then you miss the point of free speech. The antidote for different ideas, just as it is for offense or insult, is more free speech. Make a rebuttal. Offer rejoinder for insult and offense. But everyone gets their say whether you personally like it or not. Respond. Don’t. It’s your choice. However, if you value freedom of speech, you’ll never try to censor. Even if the motive behind your thought is to crush an idea that is deeply offensive and indefensible. Motives don’t matter. Once you cross the line into censorship, you’ve abandoned criticism and counterargument for oppression. You will never beat a bad idea with oppression just like you’ll never stop a good idea with oppression. As the titular character V said in V for Vendetta, “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. There is an idea, Mr. Creedy – and ideas are bulletproof.” Ideas and arguments are not idea and argument proof though. That’s the whole notion behind the marketplace of ideas. This illustrates why the antidote to bad ideas and bad arguments is precisely more free speech – better ideas, better arguments.
Your feelings are not generally protected by law with the one exception in tort. They are subjective. They are your own reactions and you own them. They may or may not be rational.
This is part and parcel of what is wrong with the idea of politically correct speech. An idea that has crept on to what was once the bastion of free speech – American college campuses. Rather than interpret or summarize How Free Speech Died on Campus by Sohrab Ahmari, I am simply going to direct your attention to it and suggest that you read it in full for a scathing example of “politically correct” speech regulations on college campuses and how it has gone wrong. It’s a short article, but dense and well worth the read, full of examples like;
At Western Michigan University, it is considered harassment to hold a ‘condescending sex-based attitude.’ That just about sums up the line ‘I think of all Harvard men as sissies” (from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1920 novel ‘This Side of Paradise’), a quote that was banned at Yale when students put it on a T-shirt.”
and astute observations like;
‘The people who believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have won, Mr. Lukianoff says. ‘If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses. But now things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone’s feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person. As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished.‘” [emphasis added]
Suffice it to say, in an academic environment, there is nothing more detrimental to learning than shutting down the marketplace of ideas because some pinheaded “risk management” administrator thinks someone’s feelings should get hurt by words they themselves are free to challenge. If this trend continues, our colleges and universities will become a global laughing stock.
Free speech must be protected at all costs. It is how we speak truth to power, to others and to ourselves when we are interested in learning truths. It can make you uncomfortable. It will challenge you. It will piss you off. It will hurt your feelings. Freedom isn’t free. It comes with costs. These are some of the costs that you pay for freedom of speech. If you don’t like getting your feelings hurt? If you don’t like being challenged? Develop thicker skin, learn to counter what you don’t like, or be ready to have yet another important freedom eroded, but this time not in the name of (false) security, but the onus of political correctness and catering to the subjective over the objective. James Madison thought freedom of speech (and the press) was critical and the 1st Amendment the most important item in the Bill of Rights. Maybe you should think about that too.
What do you think?
Think, mind you. Not feel. That being said, have at it.
Source(s): WSJ Online, U.S. Constitution, U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
… for often the most dangerous flaw comes not from without but from within.
Well if you’re the only one who knows the secret handshake, you should teach the rest of us.
However, then it wouldn’t be a secret now, would it? 😛
Pelosi! (shakes fist in the air)
Pelosi is a wonderful woman and a great politician.
No one has ever asked me for input on blog policy which is ludicrous as I am the only one who knows the secret handshake.
And … there are consequences to free speech.
Blouise/bettykath,
“I’m glad that “sticks and stones” worked for you, but to others on the receiving end of the nasty words, they still hurt.”
This statement begs the question that I don’t know this because I’ve never been on the receiving end which is manifestly untrue.
If that was not how the comment was meant? Then mea culpa. In the alternative, please explain.
However, I wasn’t making assumptions about bettykath in my response. I posited some questions. I made some statements about advising kids and PC language. Other than being addressed to bettykath, no assumptions about her were made that I’m aware of. The usage of “you” in those comments was mostly the generic “you” and I thought that was clear from context and when it wasn’t it was qualified by “if”. The comment wasn’t about her despite being to her.
The only assumption I’ve made about bettykath is that she seems like a nice lady and I am expressing that assumption explicitly.
“but only in the sence that we’ve been here a long time and agree on some matters of outlook.”
This is important to note. Just because we agree on some matters of outlook does not mean we are a monolithic cabal. We also disagree at times. Mark and I have had some rather spirited disagreements as have I had with Mike S., raff and Elaine and all of us have had disagreements with our host on selected topics. I haven’t really had a disagreement with Mike A., but I’ll work on that one. I assure you Mr. Appleton, your omission was not intentional, but you’re just too damned reasonable to argue with most of the time. 😀
One thing we do agree on: free and anonymous speech are this blog’s policy as set by the host. No one will ever be banned for having an unpopular opinion. You’ll have it challenged, but then again, that is part and parcel of the marketplace of ideas. If that’s not what you want, then as I’ve said before, maybe a free speech forum isn’t what you are looking for. Find a place in line with your thinking and seek your happiness there.
This party welcomes all guests, but like any party, if you provoke other guests the consequences are yours. Your ideas and comments though? You should really be prepared to back them up. It’s not a matter of win or lose. It’s a matter of evolving from problem to solution.
I’ve had my mind changed here before. Elaine made a very persuasive argument that sticks out in my mind concerning the social costs of polygamy and why it should be prohibited whereas I had previously adopted the freedom to contract stance on the issue. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, but it should be done based on logic and evidence, not just because Joe Bob says so. I’ve also had very persuasive arguments (particularly from Mark) that while meritorious, simply didn’t convince me.
For example, I present our prodigal son, Bron. He has some very bad ideas from time to time. His original intent in coming here was to “piss of some liberals” but by his own admission, the crowd he found frequenting this forum was not what he had expected. He has some good points too and on occasion very astute observations to go with them. Like some new comers, he began trying to carry out vendettas against those who disagree with him or disprove his posits through his employ of more venomous methods of exchange. He at one point even stooped to duplicity – which did land him in trouble but even then mespo and the lost BIL spoke up for allowing his return. I’ve read some of the arguments Bron had with bloggers past and they could truly have stripped paint. He’s stubborn and his ability to insult is actually above average. Then one day, it was like the light went on. He realized that he got further with his arguments if he stuck to logic and evidence. He finally realized the futility of that venomous tactic. That maybe he did care about how his ideas competed in the marketplace on their merits. You get what you give seemed to register.
He changed his mind. Part of it anyway.
Despite many of his ideas still being unpopular, he’s become a valued contributing member of this community. Even if almost no one agrees with him still. 😉 But no one has tried to silence him. Challenge and criticism aren’t censorship. If your ideas have merit, they should withstand challenge and criticism. If they don’t, either they are bad ideas or you’ve failed to make your case. It’s nothing personal. Either get a better idea, learn to argue better or move along. Personal rancor over having your worldview tweaked will only get you more rancor in return. This is not a crowd where you can dazzle them with bull if you’re all out of brilliance.
Some of you could learn a lot from Bron’s good example.
Which I’m sure just annoys the Hell out of Bron being a good example for the community when his Randian Objectivism denies the existence of community.
He’ll get over it though.
Gene,
I think bettykath caught you on that one.
Gene,
I’m not assuming anything about you. Please don’t make assumptions about me. I’m too tired to comment on anything else.
I’m late to this party but have read all the comments. A few brief points as I’m off to bed. In this discussion, as with the thread that suggested it, there is the intermingling of paradigms. The concept of freedom of speech from a governmental/regulatory perspective should be damn near absolute freedom, for who is to decide what is appropriate? However, there exist social penalties for such exercize and why not? If I call Jews Kikes in NY, I’m sure it would limit my employabilty. If the Republicans at a school invite a guest that the Dean deems inappropriate, that Dean should be allowed to express his beliefs about the guest. Especially since the Dean wasn’t banning the guest. If the Young Repubs chickened out fearing unknown retaliation that is on them.
The essence of free speech is your willingness to defend it and your right to express it. Of the guest bloggers for instance, I along with Mike Appleton were the first of them to use our real names and that occured years before their was a Guest Blogger glint in JT’s eyes. I have always done that when I’ve made comments on the Internet specifically because if I was to speak truth to power my own preference was not to do it anonymously.
As for PC I’m well aware of its history in the Conservative Movement and how it has been used to actually stifle speech, in education/media and at the same time to give license to hateful speech that had fallen into social opprobrium in the 60’s and 70’s. It is not a nice tale and its result as seen in this election is sobering.
Now finally I am getting tired of those who come here and when their poor arguments are not greeted with enthusiasm posit that there is a behind the scenes cabal, when there isn’t. Yes I have exchanged e mails with all of the guest bloggers and with JT. We’ve never met personally and that I regret because I’ve developed affection for all of them. I’ m also in contact with OS, Blouise and AY. Do we represent an “inner circle” we do, but only in the sence that we’ve been here a long time and agree on some matters of outlook. We scrupulouly follow JT’s example of non censorship and frankly none of us have the authority.
As for lineip positions there is much less there than meets the eye and we choose our own time to post. In this I must chastise AY for leading Nick on, because we’ve been in frequent contact. Behind the scenes at this blog can be described as there’s no there, there.
Smom,
Understood. However, the admonishment still stands. For all involved. ‘Nuff said. Or it should be any way.
Gene, My husband knows nothing about these blog rules, and I doubt that he will be back, and I had nothing to do with his posts. He surprised me with his posts but he thought this was a legal blog not a place where he would be attacked for allegedly impersonating his spouse. He has another forum with which to deal with this person. Good evening.
AY,
I am sorry. I wasn’t trying to out anyone. Of course, I understand.
Since you’re new here Sdad, I’m saying this for your benefit, but your wife knows better.
At this time I will remind everyone that posting identifying information or other personal information about other commentators without their permission can and will likely get you banned. People here are allowed to express their view anonymously and retain control over their privacy as a matter of blog policy.
This is the one and only warning.
I’ll escalate the issue with our host if need be.
If you don’t think I will? Try me.
Raff,
I don’t think it’s going to happen… And if it does…. I will object to my picture being taken and or posted…. You can understand that…. Right?
bettykath,
Your assumption is that I’ve never been on the receiving end.
Just look up thread to disabuse you of that notion. I get called all manner of things on a fairly frequent basis. It doesn’t bother me a bit. Why? Precisely because I don’t derive my sense of self-worth from others in general. Are other’s words meant to be hurtful. Sure they are. And the fact that I’m indifferent to them just pisses them off even more. So who wins in the end? Me who goes to bed with a smile on their face and wakes with the same or the person angry because their words have no effect on me whatsoever other than to amuse me? I do.
I only give venom to those who serve it. And they get no mercy whatsoever. It is again the Ethic of Reciprocity. In itself a lesson. nick himself alleges that he is a grown man. If he cannot take that he chooses to give venom to one immune and far better at dishing it out than he is, then that, like his choice to argue poorly, is his decision.
As for young people? Do you really think I’d give a young person any other advice than be true to yourself? You might think so, but you’d be wrong. Sure, what you hear may influence you, but it does not control you. You and only you make and own your decisions. There are other things I would tell a young person: think for yourself, observe the world around you, interrogate the nature of reality, makes sure what you think you see and hear is what something actually is – or to combine the two major ideas into the words of Marcus Aurelius; “Ask of each and everything what is it in itself?” and “If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.”; tempered with words of Shakespeare in Hamlet; “This above all: to thine own self be true/ And it must follow, as the night the day,/ Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
As for PC speech, institutional speech codes cease to be social when they have real consequences for students and whether state school – which is a direct governmental institution – or private school – which benefits from governmental spending and programs, when we allow schools to impose these kinds of prohibitions from the institutional level we are allowing governmental oppression by proxy.
Swarthmore mom,
I understand.
rafflaw, Hey I am not going to be in the pic or near the place.
Swarthmore mom,
Thanks. Have fun guys.
raff, He says he will snap a picture and post it.
That should be some pics! Lo siento!