Guest Post: Stuart Torr
There are many people from vulnerable sections of the intersection matrix who do defend Freedom of Speech, like MLK as a tool in the Civil Rights Movement. Freedom of Speech as an issue in the first place is precisely to protect vulnerable from the powerful. Oppressive governments are very resistant to Free Speech, because it hinders their repressive efforts. Plenty of Jewish people are opposed to laws banning Holocaust denial (this opens a new fork in the road where members of these vulnerable groups can get vilified by other members of "their group" for not adopting the "correct" line. This is quite common and is very unpleasant). Of course, things get into weird territory pretty quickly when it comes to antisemitism. So, the example of Jeremy Corbyn objecting to an antisemitic mural being wiped. Would that mural have been illegal, or are Jewish people now too powerful to be included in the vulnerable category even when the past stuff is being referenced?
Freedom through Free Speech
One way I've seen Free Speech defended is something like this. Suzie doesn't care about Free Speech but has a pet issue she cares deeply about that's not socially acceptable (like she lives in the 30s and is in favour of interracial marriage). Bob doesn't care about Free Speech but cares deeply about his theory that Israel arranged 9/11. They both would be happy for other people's pet issues to be constrained but they feel more strongly about advocating for their pet issue. If you feel confident enough that you can get your way, then maybe you're happy to restrict speech. The less confident you are that the restrictions will go your way, maybe the more willing you'll be to accept a deal where they can say their crazy shit so long as you can say yours. This is a 2nd best (you'd rather say your stuff and stop other people from saying theirs) but the more niche your views are and the more you care about it, the better deal it becomes.
Trans issues are a good current case study, because unlike many issues to do with racism and sexism I don't believe that all right-thinking, even "woke" people are on the same page on this. Like if a 12-year-old "assigned female" has gender dysphoria and wants to transition, maybe right-thinking people agree that he can choose a name, clothes pronouns etc for himself. But then what about hormone therapy, top surgery and then bottom surgery? The clock is ticking puberty-wise, but a 12-year-old is a child and this surgery is a big deal. There are (few) instances where young people get surgery and then regret it and detransition. Some of these people wish they hadn't gotten surgery.
Ok, so is the paragraph above Hate Speech? I don't think so personally, but some Trans people would think it is. How about allowing Trans women who have not had surgery but who feel vulnerable and try to go to a shelter for abused women. Some Feminists don't think it's a no-brainer that this should be allowed, is it Hate Speech to argue this? This is also (often quite hectically) contested.
To me, it seems like these issues are difficult and need to be debated etc, but it also seems like the freedom to debate them is exactly what is at issue. I think Free Speech very neatly cuts the Gordian knot of how to proceed in discussing difficult issues where it would otherwise be impossibly difficult.
Hate Speech v Free Speech
Stuart and I have been friends for almost two decades. He has changed my views on some pretty significant topics. I have a lot of fun spending time with him. He teaches Mathematics at the University of Cape Town.
Other posts by Stuart Torr
No comments:
Post a Comment