Free speech, and so free thought, is under threat in America today.
We are not committed to it.
Free speech means nothing if it does not apply to people and ideas that upset us.
The doctrine of free speech is something like this: The people we most need to hear from are the people we least want to hear from.
Most political and cultural disagreement is now considered to be upsetting and divisive, rather than interesting and constructive. We Americans are far more interested in defending our pet assumptions and prejudices.
National Review writer Kevin D. Williamson was hired by The Atlantic magazine some months ago, presumably in the interest of intellectual diversity. When it became clear that, in his new home, he would continue to be himself and take positions quite at odds with most of The Atlantic family, and in his own voice, the office outrage was palpable and the Twitter mob descended. He had to be unhired within days of his hiring.
Andrew Sullivan left New York magazine saying: “A critical mass of the staff and management at New York Magazine and Vox Media no longer want to associate with me.” He said fellow staffers believed his columns were “physically harming” them. His sin? Though a classical liberal on many issues and generally Democratic in his politics, he dubs himself a conservative, and is conservative on such matters as immigration, religion and gender.
So, disagreement equals discomfort, which requires separation.
But discomforting disagreements may also be cast as “hate speech,” and therefore verbal assault: Suppose a person walks into a gathering of the self-anointed virtuous and mentions that he is a member of the NRA, protests at an abortion clinic and voted for Donald Trump. He might be viewed as more than discomforting. He might be viewed as disturbing, threatening and asked to leave.
A hard-core Trumper, maybe even a soft-core one, will tell you that that no mercy will be shown Joe Biden: He’s senile. He’s a dupe of the left. He gets no honeymoon, no chance, no assumption of goodwill from us. He’s not my president.
By the way, that’s speech. It may be mean, stupid, unpatriotic and irresponsible. But it is protected.
Which brings me to point No. 2: There really is a slippery slope to canceled speech and canceled history.
If Winston Churchill, both Roosevelts and Thomas Jefferson, along with Dr. Seuss are canceled, no one is safe.
No one will ever be pure enough.
What the cancel culture cannot see is that eventually, everyone gets gone. For if flaws in the good guys mean they must be erased, those of us who are more flawed and less gifted will surely not be spared.
And there will be someone who says “free speech for me but not thee – definitely not thee,” for each and every one of us.
For empiricists and historians, the necessity of a humble and open mind is the fickle nature of all times, trends and passing wisdom.
For the classical liberal, it is the marketplace of ideas: There are no ultimate truths so we must keep seeking, debating, learning and refining.
For the classical conservative, there are ultimate truths, like God, decency and tradition. But these can only be revealed and defended in the arena – in the contest of words, ideas and leadership.
But left and right today are united in their illiberality, intolerance and arrogance. Both sides wish to live in echo chambers, have their own facts and, indeed, their own journalism and history, which affirm their tribal oaths.
How do we till the ground for free speech?
Let the other guy speak. Assume he loves the country, too. Respect what he knows that you may not. Listen. Let affection trump opinion.
Tribune Content Agency