The Free Speech Conundrum, Resolved
I came across this statement earlier, in which the Chancellor of UC Berkeley defends the right of Neo-Nazis to speak on campus. I found myself angered, but mostly frustrated : I had seen this same argument refuted time and time again. Bigotry is not a valid opinion. Hate speech is inimical to free speech.
In short, I would encourage us to be wary of people in power (chancellors especially) claiming the moral high ground when condoning hate speech. This is, frankly, a cowardly position to take, and one that directly undermines (or even refutes) the writer’s commitment to the free exchange of ideas.
I’ve dissected below the second paragraph of the chancellor’s statement, found here.
The public expression of many sharply divergent points of view is fundamental both to our democracy and to our mission as a university.
- cool. This is true ! However, one of the “sharply divergent points of view” in question here is the “opinion” that white folk are inherently superior to others. Which, frankly, is not an opinion : it is bigotry, and is extremely dangerous.
The philosophical justification underlying free speech, most powerfully articulated by John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty, rests on two basic assumptions. The first is that truth is of such power that it will always ultimately prevail; any abridgement of argument therefore compromises the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.
- truth may ultimately prevail, but it does not do so alone. Truth does not have agency ; we do. And while the true ugliness of bigotry will indeed be revealed once thirty, forty, or fifty years have passed, this adage sorely neglects the people currently targeted by hate speech. The lives of Black folk, Latinx folk, and trans folk in particular. It’s on us to stand up on behalf of those who have been marginalized, and it’s on us to assert the value of truth.
- it’s tempting to think abridging, or shutting down any given argument is inherently bad ; that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Hate speech, however, thrives on exposure : it’s not a wound that needs cleaning, but a weed that drinks up the sun at the expense of the rest of the garden. Allowing misogyny a public venue on the same level as any other civil discourse is precisely the kind of behavior that elected Trump. And Trump’s racism is precisely the kind of “legitimized” hate speech that emboldens Neo-Nazis and the KKK to traipse about unmasked. We condone hate speech at the expense of free speech — and we mustn’t shirk away from condemning it for fear of becoming tyrants.
The second [assumption] is an extreme skepticism about the right of any authority to determine which opinions are noxious or abhorrent. Once you embark on the path to censorship, you make your own speech vulnerable to it.
- America doesn’t have laws curtailing hate speech, and it’s thanks to this attitude. Again, promoting white supremacy (e.g., implicitly endorsing genocide) is not a valid “opinion,” and must not be treated as such. Bigotry is not an opinion which holds equal weight in the marketplace of ideas. It is fear, or hate, or both, masquerading as an intellectual debate. No matter how well-dressed or articulate a Neo-Nazi may be, he is none the less advocating for the extermination of the non-white, of the disabled, of the LBGT+ community, etc. We mustn’t be afraid of condemning these folks : silencing a Neo-Nazi advocating for genocide is not the moral equivalent of silencing a Black woman fighting for justice.
… and she has the gall to defend Milo Yiannopoulos’ right to speak in September in a later paragraph. UGH. I could go on, refuting the tired platitudes in the rest of her statement, but I’ll stop here. Don’t be taken in by free speech absolutism : hate speech (advocating for genocide) is only condoned at the expense of public safety.
