Friday, July 17, 2020

You're free to say anything, anywhere . . ..


(Preamble: As is usual, my posts reflect an opinion, hopefully with credible support. I relish debate, discussion on anything I write about so don’t hesitate to pose another viewpoint either by commenting on the post or emailing me at gg.epp41@gmail.com.)

On Mackinac Bridge, January, 2016

Let’s begin with the obvious: physically, anyone can say anything he/she wants, wherever and whenever the mood and incentive present. Senate page, Brigette Marcelle, can whip out a “Stop Harper” placard during the throne speech and parade it in front of the then-prime minister. We are free to stand in front of the Post Office locally and assail patrons with a religious or political message. If we have the nerve, no one will stop us from standing up in church and denouncing the pastor mid-sermon.
    The issue so much in the news these days is not free speech, really, it’s the effects and consequences of speech, period. A letter in Harper’s Magazine over the signatures of 150 “names of note” posited that we’re too “illiberal” in the consequences we mete out for the expression of unpopular opinions. (Columnist/author Malcolm Gladwell signed, but tweeted that he signed it because he disagreed with the views of some other signatories and wasn’t his right to do so exactly what the letter was about?
    Many a professor or teacher has lost his/her job for promulgating unpopular opinions—like the Holocaust never happening, or that aids is a homosexual disease—and I daresay that to teach that socialism is the economy of the future would in most any American university right now signal time to update one’s resume. That’s not an equivalent case to a brother-in-law praising Trump at a family gathering. Call it free speech or whatever, there are substantial gradations in the offense speech delivers and the consequences that apply . . . that should or shouldn’t apply.
    If I hold an unpopular opinion, the expression of it in my community comes down to a personal judgment, including the weighing of consequences. I think we all assume that the world would be better if others would see sense and adopt our opinions, whether we’re with the majority or the minority. Holding a minority opinion will always be the weaker position, and so consequences for expressing a given opinion (especially on matters of far-reaching consequences) will always seem harsh simply because dissenters will be louder, more numerous, often by far. And so, the cry for having the right to express minority opinions generally comes off as the complaints of “victims,” which fact doesn’t consider that the right to express an opinion and to express opposition to that opinion are equal rights or are no rights at all.
    Given the right circumstances, most of us can be deluded into thinking that “sticks and stones may break [one’s] bones, but words can never hurt [one].” Indeed, the assault rifle probably pales in its ability to do harm when compared to the tongue. “The pen is mightier than the sword,” primarily because it can lead to war or avert it while the sword can only deal with the consequences of diplomatic failure.
    Our words support discrimination or they alleviate it; our words can encourage hope, or promote despair; our words build people up or tear them down; and if current social media are the yardsticks, can bring out the loving best in us or encourage the hate-filled worst.
    A recent social media post claimed that the Holocaust had nothing to do with racism, but rather that the NAZIs assumed Jews would leak government plans to the enemy and the concentration camps were set up to prevent that. Are the people promulgating this opinion to be protected from criticism on the basis of their right to “free speech?” Or if a person expressing such opinions is invited to address university students on the Holocaust, should “free speech” protect that person from protests by students? Certainly not, and not anymore than would constitutional protection for exercising “the right to set fire to things.”
    If speech ceases to merit consequences, then ignorance and erudition become equals. Harm or benefit should set the benchmarks for the acceptability of public utterance. Our nation, our provinces, our municipalities, our communities are given stability by what we often call “a social contract.” Speech—just like actions—shouldn’t be allowed to diminish the value a stable social contract renders to us as individuals. The attack on democracy we see happening south of the border can certainly be blamed—in part, at least—on a carelessness with truth modeled in the declarations and tweets of the president, granting license for all kinds of divisive rhetoric in the fringes of the nation by his example. 
    To declare that white supremacist or racial slurs are guarded by the constitutional right to free speech is a non sequitur. Diminishing a person’s self-confidence, tarnishing a reputation by whatever means, lessening a group’s chances of achieving equality in the nation, these are crimes and speech is often the weapon of choice.

    Perhaps something needs to be said as well about that kind of positively-approached jousting of opinions by which communities work their way to a decision during times of controversy, particularly.
    We may underestimate the significance of our elections, for instance, which are peaceful, and the results of which are accepted without rancour or rebellion. We do have courteous (for the most part) habits to inform us.

Something is wrong in a family or community if certain subjects become taboo, or if legitimate but differing opinions are stifled in the public forum. Granted, to have the self-confidence to state and defend a minority opinion, even where there is an existing commitment to unity, can be wrenching; the first order of business must always be the determination to extend a fair hearing to every individual. Communities have too often so neglected the arts of dialogue that minority views feel too threatened to give voice to their stances. If it applies anywhere, then surely this is a place and situation where “free speech” should make sense.
    Nevertheless, where pronouncements tend to undermine the social or community contract, the penalties ought to be commensurate with the potential damage in order to be just. A teacher indoctrinating vulnerable students with a revisionist history hasn’t—probably—broken any bones, but is the damage less than would be the actual breaking of an arm or leg? Is it OK to wave an “All Lives Matter” placard at “Black Lives Matter” demonstrators? If discrimination against black persons is a problem, and if the demonstration is an effort to persuade the public to accept changes that would alleviate the problem, then efforts to water down the movement’s message with such speech—even though reasonable generally—may be no less criminal than driving a car into the demonstration. This is not free speech; this is psychological, political arson.
    By now, there is far too much hurtful, harmful speech being propagated to allow us even the dream of a just and honourable social contract, at least in the internet forums. I’ve tried to engage in a number of conversations online that fall into the “COVID 19 as political hoax,” category as courteously as I’m able, hoping in my small way to—I guess—impose my “Canadian Christian Social Democratic Vision” on the hard-line, me-first-and-only dialogue. What I realized early on is that opinions on both sides are driven less by truth-seeking than by partisan loyalty. (Except in my case, of course!)

What we’ve agreed to in Western democracies is that majority opinions prevail, and that they’re expressed meaningfully through the ballot box and their legitimacy is honoured. It’s the heart of representative democracy.
    Perhaps, strengthening the significance of that combined with better liberal arts education is where our hopes for the future will lie.