~George Orwell
There are certain words and phrases, the simple mention of which immediately evoke irritation, disdain, and trepidation in the American consciousness. Not the least of these phrases is “thought police.” It’s not that we find being offensive to be a core American value. Holocaust deniers and KKK members don’t hold a special or favored place in the collective heart of Americans.
A world can be imagined where only truly harmful speech is suppressed, while productive or benign speech is unrestrained — but only if one’s imagination is not very good. In order to limit harmful speech a threshold question must first be confronted: What, exactly, is “harmful speech?”
This question is where the whole concept starts to unravel. Determining which ideas are kosher and which are not is an imminently subjective practice and one rife with pitfalls. What is offensive to some is often considered clever, insightful, or downright hilarious to others. Does the offense of one person, or a group of people, constitute harm worthy of being squelched? If so, which group’s opinion will be the one that controls? Even the clear cases become cloudy in short order.
Most would agree that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis in Germany several decades ago and would find it repugnant to claim that such a fact is a fabrication. Of course, Holocaust deniers probably find the average person’s uncritical belief in the “official story” offensive as well. Which of these groups should be able to enforce their will upon the other?
It’s tempting, in that situation, to fall back on “facts”, but the inescapable dilemma that arises is this one: who gets to decide what is considered “fact”? In life, there are two kinds of facts. Facts that actually are and “facts” that we collectively believe to be true. Sometimes they overlap, but that is not always the case. The archetypal example is round/flat earth debate. There was a time when it was a “fact” — everyone believed — that the heavens revolved around the Earth. Even today, there are still those who believe that the earth is flat.
The philosophical problem of “truth” arises and begins to meddle in the eminently practical determination of who is allowed to speak, and what they’re allowed to say.
It could be argued, though, that such an argument is missing the forest in consideration of just one tree. It isn’t harmful to believe that the earth is flat, of course, so it’s not a good example or analogy, right? After all, we’re trying to figure out what constitutes “harmful” speech.
But it is a perfect example, because what gets tossed into the “harmful speech” category is a policy decision. A decision that would be made by the legislature, governmental agencies, or even by referendum. Do we trust — and should we trust — any of those groups to exercise restraint, to err on the side of freedom, and to only exercise the power to silence in extreme cases?
We don’t, and we shouldn’t.
As it stands in the United States, limits on speech are few and heavily scrutinized. A brief, but not particularly rigorous, summary of the law on point is that you can say whatever you want, so long as it’s true and will not incite people to violence.
It has been argued1 that such a standard is too tough. That it keeps us from limiting speech that is, in fact, harmful but doesn’t have the prospect of immediate violence.
Maybe it is not ideal. Maybe it would be better to keep people from saying offensive things. I don’t believe that, but suppose it’s true. The problem is that once we relax the standards — once we give the government the power to “protect” us from supposedly harmful things — the genie simply will not go back in the bottle. The limits and government-imposed political correctness would not come by flood, but incrementally. Nevertheless, before you know it, you could find yourself on trial for offending someone.
The current legal battle in Canada between Maclean’s, conservative columnist Mark Steyn, and a group of offended Muslims provides an apt illustration. There can be little doubt that Canada’s intentions were good when they made such suits and possible, but the end result is a dangerous one for any democracy.
Voting bodies can be easily controlled with information — with speech. Once the government has the power to freely regulate speech on the basis of “harm”, the integrity of the primary form of politcal currency in our country has been compromised. More frightening than an overt change to fascism is the gradual decline into it, and that’s precisely what more lax restrictions on speech regulation invite.
The benefits are vastly out-weighed by the potential for abuse, and for what? So that Joe Citizen can avoid having his feelings hurt by some big meanie?
No, thank you.
via Kristin Hoppe
