For the left, a wake-up call on free speech

[Stevicus]

For the left, a wake-up call on free speech (msn.com)

I thought this was an interesting article, outlining the problems and consequences of policies designed to restrict speech and protect people's feelings.

Speech hurts. It creates ill feelings and even trauma in its victims. So, we need to enact rules and regulations to limit harmful speech, just as we do with littering, drunk driving or any other social hazard.

That's been a common refrain of my fellow liberals in recent years, especially at our colleges and universities. And I agree with the first part: speech hurts. But once we use that fact to restrict it, almost anything can be censored. And one day, as I've been warning my left-leaning friends, the censors will come after you.

I've made similar warnings in the past. The main reason for protecting free speech and other human rights is self-interest, so that your rights are protected as much as the other guy's.

That day has arrived. More than 20 Republican-led state legislatures have considered laws this year to limit instruction about racism and sexism in public schools and universities. And of the five states that passed such measures by the end of June, several of them prohibited instruction that would give rise to "discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex."

Sound familiar? That's precisely the kind of language that has been used to restrict speech on our college campuses. Dozens of institutions have promulgated lists of tabooed microaggressions, defined as small and often unintended slights that nevertheless take a lasting psychological toll on their targets. In a similar vein, students have demanded that professors issue trigger warnings for sensitive course content that might harm listeners.

Other schools have instituted regulations barring "threats" or "harassment," which can apply to almost any speech that someone doesn't like. California State University-Monterey Bay prohibits "any threat or action of physical, emotional, or verbal harm in any form." At Northwestern University, an anti-harassment rule bars "offensive jokes related to a protected class."

Anything that would give rise to "discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's race or sex" is prohibited in some states. The writer indicates that the language used is precisely the language that has already been used to restrict speech on college campuses. The writer is suggesting here that the left has no leg to stand on in criticizing such prohibitions, since the left has already set the precedent of supporting such rules in the past.

Who wants to harm or offend other people? I certainly don't. So, grant the censors their due: these restrictions make a certain kind of sense. "Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical," Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a century ago. "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."

But that sweeps away democracy itself, Holmes warned, which is premised on our ability to govern ourselves. What offends or harms one person might cheer or inspire another. Banning "offensive" speech allows the people with the most power to impose their definitions upon the rest of us, which squashes discussion of public questions that should concern everyone.

That's what the new state laws try to do. Under the guise of protecting students' psychological health, they effectively put difficult parts of our past and present - especially slavery and racism - out of bounds. Will addressing the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 or contemporary police brutality cause feelings of guilt or anguish in students? It's hard to know, so teachers will avoid or downplay these topics. Happy faces only, please.

Gamely, GOP defenders of these measures have argued that they simply bar curricula that say some groups (read: white people) should feel guilt and anguish. But that's a slender reed, and it's easy to imagine how objecting parents could run roughshod over it: My kid is feeling badly about what you taught! You must be breaking the law!

In higher education circles, meanwhile, administrators of public institutions are walking on eggshells. A community college in Oklahoma has already canceled a course on race and ethnicity, fearing that it might violate the state's new measure barring instruction that creates discomfort.

But for the past few years, our colleges and universities have exacted their own kinds of penalties for people who say discomfiting things. At the University of Southern California, most notoriously, business school professor Greg Patton was removed from his course last year for using a Chinese term that sounded like the N-word in English.

"Our mental health has been affected," a group of Patton's students complained, in a letter to their dean. "We would rather not take his course than to endure the emotional exhaustion of carrying on with an instructor that disregards cultural diversity and sensitivities and by extension creates an unwelcome environment."

Republican state legislators couldn't have put it better themselves: speech hurts. But if my liberal colleagues continue to restrict it on those grounds, they won't have a leg to stand on when GOP lawmakers do the same thing.

We need to let everyone speak their minds, no matter what feelings they provoke. Period. That's a lesson we all need to learn, over and over again, until we know it by heart.

Of course, the right-wing has also had a long history of restricting speech, such as the Hays Code and laws against pornography or any form of "indecency." They also blacklisted anyone considered to have left-wing views. But then the left came back with restrictions of their own, so it seems to go back and forth.

Now, the right-wing is retaliating with their own restrictions on speech, using the same exact language that the left has used.

I think this also points up the idea that there doesn't appear to be any set of consistent principles either side is really following. If one embraces the principle that "any threat or action of physical, emotional, or verbal harm in any form" should be prohibited, then one should be willing and able to practice that consistently. If not, then it may not be a good principle to follow.

I was wondering what others thought about this.

 

[Viker]

Outside of vitriolic hate speech( bullying, slur usage, etc.) and terroristic threatening... I'm sick of restrictions on speech in general.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was wondering what others thought about this.

Is there a point beyond which speech threatens to become actionable provocation?

 

[Stevicus]

Is there a point beyond which speech threatens to become actionable provocation?

If it creates a clear and present danger. I think that's a reasonable standard to follow.

 

[HonestJoe]

I thought this was an interesting article, outlining the problems and consequences of policies designed to restrict speech and protect people's feelings.

It would be a better article if it hadn't spun around the left/right division that is America these days. Of course, then it would have also been a very short articles too.

The issue is very simple, and not limited to issues of free speech. Some behaviours can have very negative consequences so there need to be policies, rules and laws to try to prevent (or at least reduce) those negative consequences. Whenever you have rules though, some will be flawed, some will be misunderstood and some will be abused.

The conclusion of the article seemed to be that we should therefore have no rules at all, though it obviously fails to consider all of the negative consequences of that.

Of course, I think they're lying and don't really believe that is the logical conclusion, they just needed a dramatic enough opinion to sell their article.

 

[PureX]

Threatening speech, slanderous speech, and hate speech meant to incite violence or other criminal acts are already illegal and prosecutable. So I see no reason that we would need to go further. Perhaps there could be some extra precautions regarding children, though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If it creates a clear and present danger. I think that's a reasonable standard to follow.

How does one know if it will lead to that? Is it guaranteed?

Restrictions on 'what if' ideology based on assumptions is a tyrannical road to walk on.

I'm outlawing speech because something bad might happen. Not good.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If it creates a clear and present danger. I think that's a reasonable standard to follow.

I don't. I hate 'what if' legislation.

 

[Stevicus]

It would be a better article if it hadn't spun around the left/right division that is America these days. Of course, then it would have also been a very short articles too.

The issue is very simple, and not limited to issues of free speech. Some behaviours can have very negative consequences so there need to be policies, rules and laws to try to prevent (or at least reduce) those negative consequences. Whenever you have rules though, some will be flawed, some will be misunderstood and some will be abused.

The conclusion of the article seemed to be that we should therefore have no rules at all, though it obviously fails to consider all of the negative consequences of that.

Of course, I think they're lying and don't really believe that is the logical conclusion, they just needed a dramatic enough opinion to sell their article.

I didn't get the impression that the article was saying there should be no rules at all.

I think the conclusion here is that, if one is in a position of imposing rules upon others, it would be wise to ask oneself: Would I be okay with it if my political opponents were in power and imposed similar rules on me?

 

[Stevicus]

How does one know if it will lead to that? Is it guaranteed?

Restrictions on 'what if' ideology based on assumptions is a tyrannical road to walk on.

I'm outlawing speech because something bad might happen. Not good.

I don't think there are any guarantees on anything. But as far as how does one know, it would be a matter of circumstances and other factors which may be evident. If one is making a direct call for violence, then I think that would cross the line. But unless it's something blatant and obvious like that, I think we'd be better off erring on the side of free speech.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But unless it's something blatant and obvious like that, I think we'd be better off erring on the side of free speech.

... until it turns out that we've underestimated or otherwise misread the situation. Of course, "we" are usually not the victims of "our" error. Oh, well ...

The problem, of course, is that hate speech serves to promote, and often mobilize, hate, which, in turn, feeds incitement. Drawing the line is not easy, and we should worry a lot (and persistently) about how cavalierly we do so.

 

[Polymath257]

The typical restriction allowed for free speech is "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater". There are some examples of speech that, by their utterance, put people in harms way.

The difficulty is that the phrase about fires and theaters comes from a Supreme Court case involving pamphlet distribution against WWI. In the case, opponents of the draft were handing out pamphlets and arrested. This was seen as equivalent to yelling about fire in a theater. I doubt it would be seen so today.

So, while there are situations where speech can and should be limited, it isn't always so clear where the boundary lies.

'Fighting words' have often been seen as illegitimate and the current 'psychological distress' derives from that line of thinking. But it has clearly gone way too far and yes, it will come back around to bite those proposing it.

 

[Kooky]

So, can anybody check if I got the argument from the article correctly:

If you allow speech to be restricted for any reason at all, you open the flood gates for speech to be restricted for every reason. Because some leftists believe speech should not be used to harm individuals, this justifies governments cynically employing spurious arguments to shut down leftist speech.

Therefore, any restriction against speech that exists is bad. Speech should have no restrictions whatsoever, because any argument in favor restricting speech can be misused by cynical racists for their own ends.

Do I have this correct?

If yes, then why does this logic only apply to laws restricting speech, but no other type of legislation?

Shouldn't we argue against any kind of law, since they all can be cynically misused by unscrupulous politicians?

 

[Kooky]

I don't think there are any guarantees on anything. But as far as how does one know, it would be a matter of circumstances and other factors which may be evident. If one is making a direct call for violence, then I think that would cross the line. But unless it's something blatant and obvious like that, I think we'd be better off erring on the side of free speech.

Who decides what speech is a "direct call to violence"? Isn't that in the hands of the same unscrupulous politicians who cynically abused justifications for hate speech? What makes you think they wouldn't use that other justification just as cynically?

 

[Stevicus]

... until it turns out that we've underestimated or otherwise misread the situation. Of course, "we" are usually not the victims of "our" error. Oh, well ...

The problem, of course, is that hate speech serves to promote, and often mobilize, hate, which, in turn, feeds incitement. Drawing the line is not easy, and we should worry a lot (and persistently) about how cavalierly we do so.

I would consider hate speech to be in the "blatant and obvious" category, since it can and does create a clear and present danger.

However, there's the concept of hate speech being somewhat masked, using code words, symbols, or "dog whistle" terms which may not be immediately obvious to those who haven't been initiated to the slang, euphemisms, or symbolism. That may not cross the line of clear and present danger, although it could mean potential danger.

Although I think the writer of this article is talking less about potential incitement as much as about the idea that "Speech hurts."

 

[Kooky]

The typical restriction allowed for free speech is "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater". There are some examples of speech that, by their utterance, put people in harms way.

The difficulty is that the phrase about fires and theaters comes from a Supreme Court case involving pamphlet distribution against WWI. In the case, opponents of the draft were handing out pamphlets and arrested. This was seen as equivalent to yelling about fire in a theater. I doubt it would be seen so today.

So, while there are situations where speech can and should be limited, it isn't always so clear where the boundary lies.

'Fighting words' have often been seen as illegitimate and the current 'psychological distress' derives from that line of thinking. But it has clearly gone way too far and yes, it will come back around to bite those proposing it.

It also depends on who uses speech. The communists were legally prosecuted with the same justification that was later used to defend the KKK's racist harassment in court.

Based on my - admittedly somewhat limited - knowledge of US legal history, it very much seems to me like the boundaries of free speech very often lies somewhere around a comfort zone that allows conservative groups to engage in the active suppression of racial minority expression and leftist political activity.

 

[Kooky]

Although I think the writer of this article is talking less about potential incitement as much as about the idea that "Speech hurts."

If political speech has any effect at all on people's lives and people's behavior, then it has the capacity to hurt.

 

[HonestJoe]

I didn't get the impression that the article was saying there should be no rules at all.

Last line of the article; "We need to let everyone speak their minds, no matter what feelings they provoke. Period. That's a lesson we all need to learn, over and over again, until we know it by heart."

I think the conclusion here is that, if one is in a position of imposing rules upon others, it would be wise to ask oneself: Would I be okay with it if my political opponents were in power and imposed similar rules on me?

That is a reasonable question (assuming you're the kind of person who has political opponents ) but the answer is more complex since the similarity of various rulesets is very much a matter of opinion. The rapid promoters of any given position are going to see their own rules as reasonable, rational and vital while seeing their opponents rules as an extreme imposition on freedom (and vice-versa).

Rules are a necessity to any kind of structured society. The key point is to find a way to establish rules that are actually reasonable, balanced and fair, not just ones which favour any particular socio-political preference.

 

[Kooky]

I didn't get the impression that the article was saying there should be no rules at all.

I think the conclusion here is that, if one is in a position of imposing rules upon others, it would be wise to ask oneself: Would I be okay with it if my political opponents were in power and imposed similar rules on me?

The simple answer to that question is that my political opponents will impose whatever rule to restrict my political activity that they can get think they can get away with, regardless of my own opinions towards free speech.

Anti-socialists have been happily suppressing socialist speech in countries where the dangers of a communist takeover have always been neglibible to nonexistent, regardless of leftist feelings towards similar restrictions elsewhere. The KKK has been harassing Black people regardless of whether these Black people would have been fine doing the reverse to Whites. Neonazis would happily destroy any and all legal protections of free speech that wasn't theirs if they got into power.

Where do we get the ridiculous notions from that our political opponents would always and forever hold themselves to the exact same restrictions on political activity that we set for ourselves?

 

[Stevicus]

Who decides what speech is a "direct call to violence"? Isn't that in the hands of the same unscrupulous politicians who cynically abused justifications for hate speech? What makes you think they wouldn't use that other justification just as cynically?

As I said, there are no guarantees on anything. I'm just saying that we'd all be better off under a government which tends to err on the side of free speech. For the most part, the courts have tended to go along with that notion. Of course, that wasn't always the case throughout our history, and as we all know, politics is a dirty business. But as long as we have a relatively open society with an emphasis on free speech and a free press, then it is believed that any malfeasance or cynicism on the part of the politicians would eventually come out and be exposed. But again, no guarantees of that.

I think a key point was raised in the article about Oliver Wendell Holmes in citing a landmark decision while he was on the Court:

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical," Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a century ago. "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."

But that sweeps away democracy itself, Holmes warned, which is premised on our ability to govern ourselves.

In a democratic society, every adult citizen is, in effect, a leader in society. What would one think of a leader who said that he/she didn't want to hear any bad news? "I don't want to hear any bad news. Don't say or show me anything that might trigger me or offend me or upset me in some way." That would be a pretty bad leader, in my opinion. They would surround themselves with "yes men" who would only tell them what they want to hear. There have been leaders like that in history. They usually tend to go down in infamy or remembered as such.

If we, as citizens, are expected to govern ourselves in a democratic society, then a free, relatively unimpeded flow of objective information is required in order to adequately fulfill that purpose.