I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say Something I Hate
Regardless of how you feel about censorship (and we can quibble with whether private companies wiping out any trace of intellectual dissent on their platforms is censorship or not) I think we have a bigger problem.
And the problem, like most problems we’re facing, is not the fault of any corporation or government or scapegoat group of the month.
The problem is with you and I.
You and I want to silence each other.
We don’t want to converse, we don’t want to make a case, we don’t want to listen. We just want to use any means, private or public, to make the other person and their ideas go away.
This is not good.
There are ideas out there you and I hate. I think that’s pretty much a given.
I mean really hate. Like we feel sick even knowing they exist. Humans think them, believe them, and express them. And we hate that, too. Some of us even hate those ideas so much that we don’t even regard their proponents as human.
But when did it become our instinct to forcibly silence?
Force is always tempting. The quick application of force and poof, the hateful idea is gone, right? Very tempting, indeed.
But you know what I would hate worse than hearing that idea again? A world in which some people have the right to express their ideas and others don’t.
A world in which there are “permitted” ideas and “prohibited” ideas.
A world in which force decides who gets to speak and who doesn’t.
A world, in other words, where might makes right.
That, friends, is a nightmare world. And I’m probably pointing out the glaringly bloody obvious here, but we’ve taken a big fat stride right into it… and we’re in the midst of lifting the other foot.
Look, I might think your idea is an awful, horrible, stinking pile of dogshit and hate that it even occurs to you to conceive it. But I hate worse the idea that you might not have the right to think it or express it.
Another way of saying this is: I hate your idea. But I love that you are free to think it.
I even support your right to argue against the freedom of speech. I hate that you do, but I defend your right to do it.
Does this seem like a contradiction to you?
I don’t think it is. It’s called a principle. A principle is not something you believe because it’s easy or convenient to do so. It’s something you believe in spite of tremendous personal difficulty, or aggravation, risk, or pressure to believe otherwise.
I don’t believe in the principle of freedom of speech just because it sounds idyllic, or it’s written in an old document, or because it results in a wonderful world in which there are only great ideas.
It doesn’t.
I believe in it because the alternative would be a daily, living terror.
Imagine a world in which an authority sits in judgment of what is approved and unapproved thought and speech; in which you are expected to express your compliance with approved thoughts and even display outward signs or to shout slogans that show your compliance; in which every aspect of your life, your family, your career, and even what you read or think has to be approved or permitted; in which you are terrified to speak your thoughts aloud or to take a contrary stance to the authorities or even people around you, for fear that the thought police will come to take away your livelihood, property, your ability to interact with the financial system, or travel, or even your life; in which your neighbors or family members are encouraged to watch each other and report noncompliance to the authorities; in which you are deemed “undesirable” if you oppose the regime and you are put on a list or rounded up and placed in prison or a concentration camp while you are “re-educated”; in which it is impossible to even know what is approved and unapproved thought from moment to moment, since the whims of the authority change on this matter, or change when power changes hands; in which if you even have a hint of disagreeing with the prevalent beliefs, or show any sign of dissent, you have committed a thought crime.
Imagine a world, as George Orwell did, where: “History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
Unfortunately, in 2021, none of us have to imagine this very hard.
Of course, no one actually comes out and says they are in favor of silencing ideas they disagree with, or with thought police, the persecution of undesirables, or concentration camps.
Of course not.
What they say is that freedom of speech is wonderful and they absolutely believe in it… just not for certain people or ideas.
Here’s an example, and it breaks my heart to bring it up, because it comes from a person I consider to be an intelligent observer of the world and immensely entertaining performer whose work I have enjoyed over the years: Sacha Baron Cohen.
In his address to the Anti-Defamation League, he spoke about the toxic nature of social media, how it appeals to the lowest of humanity, and how it foments hate. About this, we are in one hundred percent agreement. My solution to that would be for people to recognize it and get off social media and start reading, and communicating with people face to face again. His solution?
“Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, however, this does not apply to private businesses like Facebook. We’re not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech across society. We just want them to be responsible on their platforms… There is such a thing as objective truth. Facts do exist. And if these internet companies really want to make a difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor, work closely with groups like the ADL, insist on facts and purge these lies and conspiracies from their platforms… We have standards and practices in television and the movies; there are certain things we cannot say or do. The Motion Picture Association of America regulates and rates what we see. If there are standards and practices for what cinemas and television channels can show, then surely companies that publish material to billions of people should have to abide by basic standards and practices too… By now it’s pretty clear, [social media companies] cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. As with the Industrial Revolution, it’s time for regulation and legislation to curb the greed of these hi-tech robber barons.”
Now, this all sounds quite reasonable. Yes, of course private businesses don’t have to give a platform to everyone. If I owned a stadium and a white supremacist wanted to rent it for a speech to ten thousand of his followers I would tell him to keep his money and get the hell out of my office before I lose my general respect for law and free expression and beat the ever-loving snot out of him. That white supremacist might possess freedom of speech, but that does not imply that I must give him a stage and lights and a P.A. system and ticket-takers and hot dog vendors. In fact, it would be a violation of my freedom to force me to do so.
But notice the problem. Sacha brings up regulations, and basic standards, and “purging lies and conspiracies”. This is not the language of someone who believes in a free exchange of ideas. He wants to silence the ideas he disagrees with, and if the social media companies won’t do it themselves, then he wants the authorities to do it.
So, who will be the regulator sitting in judgment of what is true and what isn’t? Which dissenting voices are to be silenced? And isn’t that regulator subject to bias, error, or fallacy? How is the regulator to know what is true and right, if not by freely exercising their minds? Or do they have some hardline to the truth that you and I are not capable of accessing? Sacha mentions the word “conspiracy” no less than twenty-seven times in his speech. What are we to consider a “conspiracy theory” versus just a contrary, dissenting opinion? What happens if we disagree with the social media company or the regulator about this? Are we a “conspiracy theorist” the second we disagree? Is any minority view to be designated a “conspiracy” because it is not held by the mainstream? Are the holders of those opinions to then be silenced, or worse?
I don’t think Sacha Baron Cohen is really in favor of introducing thought crimes and thought police. But it is nevertheless a monstrous unintended consequence of what he is advocating.
This is why it is impossible to be in favor of “some” free speech. You can’t have some free speech any more than you can be “somewhat” pregnant, or a “little bit” dead.
You’re either in favor of a free exchange of ideas, understanding that in such a circumstance some people will believe things you disagree with — even dumb, stupid, shitty things — or you’re in favor of controlled speech, by an authority, which means the punishing and persecution of those who hold dissenting views.
Now, contrast Sacha Baron Cohen’s comments above with another British performer whose work I adore, Rowan Atkinson. Speaking of outlawing certain forms of insulting speech, aka hate speech, he says:
“The clear problem with outlawing insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism is easily construed as insult by certain parties. Ridicule, easily construed as insult. Sarcasm, unfavorable comparison, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy can be interpreted as insult… With the reasonable and well-intentioned ambition to contain obnoxious elements in society [the law] has created a society of an extraordinarily authoritarian and controlling nature. It is what you might call the new intolerance, a new but intense desire to gag uncomfortable voices of dissent… Underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments are not addressed by arresting people. They are addressed by the issues being aired, argued, and dealt with, preferably outside the legal process.”
Rowan goes on to quote President Obama, who said: “Laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression. It is more speech.”
See the difference? One is in favor of “some” free speech, which, in practice, means speech permitted by an authority. The other is in favor of actual freedom of speech, where one takes the bad in exchange for the enormous boon of being able to freely think and express one’s ideas, including one’s dissent from the prevailing views. One is in favor of silencing some speech. The other realizes the terrible consequences of doing so and thus defends free speech for all, even if it means we must put up with intolerant speech and crackpot ideas.
The implementation of thought crimes, and thought police to enforce them, is too terrible a price for what we would gain by silencing a bad idea.
Now, maybe your ideas are in vogue right now, and you think it’s wonderful that you and your people are rising to power and you’re enjoying a wonderful time as all the ideas you hate are being wiped from the Internet. Okay. But, supposing, in some future iteration of the regime, one of your ideas becomes prohibited. You will have laid the precedent that might makes right, and that free expression is only for those who have power. Your thoughts will now be subject to silencing and punishment.
Will you then acknowledge the horror of being persecuted for what you believe, and the right to dissent from the prevailing views, and only then argue for freedom of speech?
Think about an idea you feel strongly about. At some point in history, that idea was a forbidden, even a hated, idea. It needed dissenters from the prevailing view of the time to be able to reach your mind in the now. It had to fight for its time to be accepted by someone, against enormous societal and cultural pressure to crush, silence, suppress, or kill off its adherents. To believe what you now believe and express, you had to enjoy the extraordinary fortune of living at a time when you are free to believe it and express it.
That is why every living, breathing, thinking person should defend freedom of speech, as a matter of principle. Not because you and your ideas are currently under threat of silencing, but because ideas as such are being silenced. This is why I would make the same argument against censoring an idea that I absolutely despise.
Every single one of us should be making that argument.
Can You Really Silence An Idea?
Let’s go back to the idea of force for a second. Do you think when you forcibly silence an idea that idea really goes away?
We know this isn’t true. What actually happens is you harden that idea in the heads of the dissenters and embolden a resistance. You cause people who were previously silent about their beliefs to declare them righteously, and project their idea more broadly. You also cause other people who might have been on the fence about it to start wondering if there’s something to it. Why, after all, are you suppressing it? Are you afraid to make a case against it? Are you aware this broadcasts your uncertainty?
As the American abolitionist Wendell Phillips said:
“He who stifles free discussion secretly doubts whether what he professes to believe is really true.”
In attempting to silence an idea you unwittingly advertise it. And spread it. And broadcast uncertainty about your own position.
If you want bad ideas to spread and become more powerful, keep right on suppressing them.
It’s a wonderful way to never hear the end of them.
The Rational Way to Deal with Bad Ideas
Okay so there are dumb, stupid, shitty ideas out there? What of it?
You are free to reject them and encourage others to do the same.
You are free to withdraw your support for them, financially, morally, and otherwise.
You are free to quit giving them your focus and instead focus on what you would like as an alternative.
You are free to compete against them, spread good ideas, and win adherents to your alternate view.
You are free to say: “I disagree,” and leave it at that.
But under a system of regulated speech, you are not free to do any of these things. If it should happen that you find yourself on the wrong side of the regime on some issue, you are not free to reject the permitted view, nor free to withdraw your support for its adherents, nor compete with your own view, nor are you free to make a case against the official view, nor even make a nuanced case that differs slightly from it.
You are automatically in the wrong, because the “right” has been defined as what the regulating authority says it is. End of story.
And how about this for a freedom? Make a better case.
If the shitty ideas truly are shitty, then you should have no trouble demonstrating this. In fact, the more you disagree with an idea, the stronger should be your ability to dismantle it. This does nothing but strengthen you and your understanding, and strengthens people’s incentive to believe what you have to say.
And this is really the crux of our central problem, isn’t it? I believe it has become our instinct to silence one another because we feel intellectually or emotionally unequipped to deal with the idea or the person we disagree with. We resort to sneering, labelling, dismissing, sharing easy memes, shouting down, putting our bodies in close proximity with thousands of other bodies and screaming, or committing acts of vandalism and violence… but none of this is really the same thing as constructing a well-reasoned argument, or making a case. You can point the finger any number of places — the failure of education, or parenting, or social media, the rise of easy handheld convenience — but whatever the cause, or causes, we are now living in a time when people disdain mental effort, including how to correctly construct an argument, identify hidden premises, avoid logical fallacies, and adduce evidence in favor of their view. It’s hard to sort out your ideas and make a case for them. It takes immense effort. There’s no denying that. How much easier to wield a club?
But consider that the impulse to suppress ideas you do not agree with might be masking a weakness in your own thinking.
The Value of Ideas You Disagree With
I want to propose something to you: ideas you disagree with, even vehemently disagree with, can actually be a good thing.
As I pointed out in: Have You Considered That Having Multiple Perspectives is Exactly What We Need?, there is value in learning ideas different from yours. They force you to consider things you might not have otherwise, and draw your attention to things that other people find important that you may have overlooked. It is a great virtue to be able to get out of your own head and see things from someone else’s perspective. Some people would say it’s impossible. But sometimes we call things impossible when we really mean rare.
Here’s another point: sometimes we change our minds about things. Rightly so. Ideas we oppose today, we feel differently about later. It’s the old line about “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” I would argue that applies to you, personally, too. You bring resistance to every new idea you come across. We all do, because we are human. We like certainty, and new ideas threaten our certainty. At first. But if you keep studying, keep an open mind, let go of the need to be “right”, and keep your perspective on truth rather than on whatever your supposed group affiliation or identity is, your individual mind is capable of change.
We resist new ideas as a society, too. A little over a decade ago, I got reading about paleo nutrition and made some changes to my lifestyle and eating habits. People around me told me I was crazy and doing something dangerous and unhealthy. Now it is viewed as commonplace and mainstream, and being recommended by doctors and scientific literature. Unpopular ideas have to be given freedom to take hold. Change comes slowly. If we lock in “correct” ideas today, who knows what truths might never be given the chance to come to light? True for us personally, and for a society.
Point three: When we expose ourselves to ideas we disagree with, even bad ones, we teach ourselves to recognize them when they crop up again. (Much as I am now recognizing some disturbing similarities — hatred against certain groups, violence, destruction of property, outward signs of compliance, banning certain words and concepts, scapegoating, censoring, surveillance, etc.… with Germany circa 1938. Or with Orwell’s 1984.) Because of my exposure to horrible ideas, I recognize them. When we see parallels which frighten us, we become capable of correcting our course against disaster.
Fourthly, and finally, people with dissenting voices need to be able to stand up to power, even if (and maybe especially if) everyone thinks they’re crazy. People in power need to be constantly held to account. Being in power necessarily means that the powerful are surrounded by support — otherwise they wouldn’t be in power. But we have to be able to challenge this. When new information or ideas come to light, the powerful have to made to answer to them. Forcibly silencing the new ideas is not an answer — it’s a dodging of the question. By necessity, the only people bringing these challenges to the powerful are minority, dissenting voices. They must be given their voice, even if you find them incorrect or ludicrous or you hate what they are saying. You are free to make a case against them, you are free to heap scorn upon them, but you cannot be free to silence them. Dissenting views must be allowed to persist.
The alternative to prevalent bad ideas is not regulation or suppression. It is new ideas.
There is No Utopia of Agreement
Are you seeking a utopia in which no disagrees with anyone? Good news, you can have that right now: tie a blindfold over your eyes and plug your ears, and never expose yourself to an idea that isn’t yours, ever again.
In the real world, this utopia doesn’t exist. Nor should it. No two people, even you and your most beloved soulmate or friend, agree one-hundred percent on everything. It’s called having a perspective. It’s why we’re not all clones of each other. It’s what makes you distinct. Multiple perspectives are a good thing.
Moreover, if you’re trying to force that utopia into existence, it will not work. It never has. By forcibly eliminating the voices of anyone you disagree with you convince them they are right. You drive people into extremes of disagreement. This is why attempts at creating a utopia are always, always, always, bought at the price of blood. Utopians always discover this grim fact: there are not enough bullets and prisons to kill an idea.
Honestly, we shouldn’t even be having this conversation. A debate about whether we should be silencing each other, in the United States, in the 21st Century? We should be engaged in the nuances of how to make our society better. Instead we’re arguing about the very foundation which even makes that conversation possible: the ability to hold and freely express an idea.
That foundation is collapsing. If it goes, we’re all in big trouble, regardless of what we believe in.
Free expression is for everyone. Every living consciousness must be free to speak its mind.
Even if you and I disagree about everything else, can we agree on this?
‘Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.’ (Benjamin Franklin)
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence.’ (Frederick Douglass)