Why people misunderstand the ‘free speech’ debate

In an effort to communicate what I believe is quite an important principle, I have resorted to memes. Please don’t be angry at the memes. You can be angry at me, I’ll let you.

There is a belief that there are groups of young liberal people trying to stop and shut down views they do not agree with. These people apparently live in a bubble, and are too sensitive.

The instant and rightly honourable reaction to this is to talk about the whole ‘I don’t agree with you, but I will defend to death your right to say it’.

Which is absolutely lovely and honourable and everything. It hits back like a reaction to any whiff or mention of what is perceived to be a ‘shut down’. This is exacerbated by the internet, where no one is feels accountable and everyone is much ‘braver’. This is because basic societal politeness that comes from body language, eye contact and wanting conversations to be, on the whole, nice goes out of the window.

No one listens to the argument back about why said speaker was banned. They assume there is a general ‘one point of view’ which is against freedom of speech. Then someone makes a point about how young people keep censoring the older people or something like that.

This makes the liberal youth arguers even more angry, because they fundamentally disagree with this accusation. They will then take the piss, provoke, and exaggerate their point to prove it. Both groups polarise, other people suddenly have to pick a side, and both groups believe they have the moral high ground.

So ‘freedom of speech’ people start being ridiculously offensive back, using terms they would never use for the point of it, and start to appear very arrogant, whilst believing they are upsetting the status quo, whereas the fact is they are enforcing the status quo.

And so we are at a stage where two groups are not listening to each other, and just provoking each other about the nature of debate, and what form it should take. When people talk face to face, they usually agree, all it takes is some patience, and understanding. This is the end of the pictures. I will conclude with a list of reasons why people should be accountable for what they say, and then two examples;

Reasons:

• There is an imbalance in society with what sort of people get heard the most. To balance debates and allow all points of view to be heard, equal platforms are important, and space for oppressed groups to talk is also important.
• The idea of a safe space is to allow for oppressed groups to talk about progressive ways to make society more equal for them.
• Acknowledging your own privilege and how easy it is for you to speak or feel comfortable enables us to have a closer society.
• Often, when someone is politely asked to not speak about a certain topic, it is nothing new. We do not let swearing happen on radio, and there are loads of conservative measures taken to stop people talking on public platforms that are deemed ‘improper’. It is merely using this technique to highlight areas at a particular organisation might find inappropriate.
• If someone says something that makes people kill other people (or others), or incite hatred or violence, that is a crime. If we do not acknowledge the massive power words hold, they are completely unaccountable.
• When an individual refuses to appear on stage with someone, because they do not respect their values, there can be nothing good that can come from that debate. Progressive arguments can only happen if there is an element of respect between speakers. Otherwise the argument is very base, and only saving grace is a kind of painful amusement.

Examples of reasonable action:

• A man says women should not have abortions, and comes to speak at an event. A women’s group feel strongly that this man is wrong. The arguments have been heard many times before, said by privileged people that abortions are wrong. The anti-abortions speaker has never said anything directly hateful. Outcome: The speaker is still allowed to speak, and told he has to be respectful in his speech and he has to respect the views of a pro-abortion speaker present. The women’s group are allowed to protest, and an impartial chair takes questions from the floor.
• A far right group appear on campus, putting stickers up claiming all Jews and LGBT+ people should die. Nazi symbols are on lamp posts. Anyone associated with this group is removed from campus, anyone associated with this group is not allowed to speak on campus. A zero tolerance attitude is taken to this group. This is announced proudly.