Free speech
Land of the Free
You shouldn’t need to be brave to speak
When I first moved to New England, one of my friends, a fellow transplant, thought the New Hampshire state motto was hilarious. “Live Free or Die” — no room for compromise, it’s all or nothing. “Live free OR DIE!!” my friend would laugh every time we crossed the state border.
Freedom might be the single greatest right we have as United States citizens, and the most challenging. We use our right to free speech to debate our other individual freedoms.
When does free speech become hate speech? Is it possible to have both free speech *and* hate speech? Should government legislate opinions? That’s what hate speech usually is, opinions — in virtually all situations it is not supported by science or economic data.
Every year, the statement “I disagree with what you’re saying, but I defend your right to say it” becomes rarer. That sentiment goes to the heart of civil discourse. I am a fiscally conservative Democrat in a family of Trump voters. In the past two years my sisters and brothers and husband and I have learned to talk gracefully with each other about issues on which we vehemently disagree. Sometimes, we even find some common ground.
We’ve discussed racism, abortion, immigration, and homophobia, all without raising our voices or being insulting. It is not easy. I’ve listened carefully: one sister is jealous that the immigrants moving to her neighborhood can afford to buy a house when she can’t. Another sister believes in “pray away the gay,” but more strongly than that she believes in “live and let live.” One brother is concerned that he will be competing with better-educated immigrants for the same jobs.
Sometimes listening is all we can do. And sometimes that’s all people want: to feel heard. Some think that’s one of the reasons why Trump was elected; the lower- and middle-class white people who felt ignored thought they found someone who would listen to them, who spoke to their fears.
Part of the reason those voters felt ignored was because they felt they couldn’t speak freely anymore. No one can hear you if you can’t speak.
We, as a nation, will never all agree on everything. We need to learn to agree to disagree, and to debate issues quietly and rationally. I shouldn’t be afraid to speak my mind, nor should I make you afraid to speak yours. If fear is taking away one of our precious freedoms, we’re doing something wrong.
But where should we draw the line? Does free speech have no boundaries? Should we allow people to say whatever hateful thing they want, as long as they say it quietly and rationally and allow others to speak, too?
The “paradox of tolerance” theory advocates that if we are endlessly tolerant, the intolerant will take over.
Karl Popper said in 1945, “ If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” If this is true, then free speech must have boundaries.
But again, where do we draw the line? If I’m talking to a racist, and they are listening to me just as I am listening to them, are they not being tolerant? They’re still racist, but they are tolerating my views.
Popper says:
“ …we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Oxford defines tolerate as :
to allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Interference. Maybe that’s where the line is.
If someone says, “I don’t like black people,” but treats the black people they meet with respect and politeness, they are being tolerant. If my brother — who doesn’t vote — says he doesn’t want immigrants coming to America to take jobs away but he doesn’t actively do anything about it, by this definition he is being tolerant.
If tolerance hinges on interference, then speech alone should not qualify as intolerance. Physical acts — violence, picket lines, barricades, blockades— interfere with the rights of others and are de facto intolerant. Those who, as Popper says, incite interference are themselves intolerant.
I live in a small town, where everyone knows who’s Republican and who’s Democrat. One day a young college-age kid set up an “Impeach Obama” stand out by the Post Office. When I walked by, he asked if I was interested. I said, “no thanks, I’m on the other team,” and he wished me a good day. A few minutes later, someone knocked over his table and threatened him. The police were called, and I and about three other Democrats made statements in support of the kid. He’d done absolutely nothing to incite an attack. He’d expressed his opinion politely and peacefully. Honestly, he could not have been more pleasant.
Someone who’s just speaking their mind without putting any action behind it is not, by definition, intolerant. You might not want to listen to them, but they have the right to speak. As long as one’s actions are not interfering with someone else’s rights, they can and should be tolerated and heard.
Remember the old WASP dinner table rule — “no talk about politics, religion or sex”? Talk politics with your neighbors, argue about religion with your cousins, listen to each other.
We need to protect free speech. We can only do that by listening to each other.
