In his Nov. 17 column, “Fixing Free Speech,” Zach Traynor ’16 suggested that the United States could become more progressive by getting rid of “aggressive” civil liberties in the manner of supposedly more enlightened countries like Germany and Canada. Perhaps civil liberties are only “aggressive” in the sense that they provide our best defense — vigorous debate — against both ignorance and tyranny.
I don’t think anybody’s buying the hyperbolic argument that political correctness run amok will lead to gulags for people who utter homophobic slurs, though a reminder of what state-imposed universal orthodoxy looks like in practice can be helpful. Rather, the preservation of free speech keeps alive a modern society that does a fine job of convincing others to adopt tolerant attitudes on its own. Despite the widespread and instinctual fear of the unfamiliar and foreign, free speech acts as an effective mechanism for counterbalancing views of hate or ignorance.
The idea that you have “the right to say what you want to say without significant consequences” in this country is patently absurd. Look at Phil Robertson from “Duck Dynasty,” Donald Sterling or any politician who makes a serious gaffe. People react to what you say and judge you for it — no matter what Big Brother is doing about it — and this includes what any reasonable person would call “serious consequences.” The internet may allow people with unpopular views to express them without censorship, but it is also home to the social media that keep them on their toes 24/7. Somebody else can always criticize their views in a public space, especially if those views run contrary to a general consensus of netizens. This may have its own undesirable consequences — an otherwise productive contributor to society like former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who privately donated money to the awful Proposition 8 campaign, can be pressured to resign from their job for one action out of step with the internet social activist hive mind — but it doesn’t warrant government action.
As the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, free speech can and should be permissible “as demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.” If somebody wants to make an indefensibly bigoted statement, then they have revealed their true character to the “free and democratic society.” Others can respond by trying to convince that person to change their views. At the very least, those who espouse hateful views often find themselves discredited or ignored. How many people were persuaded to join the anti-gay cause by the Westboro Baptist Church picketing soldiers’ funerals?
Putting people behind bars for their views and statements lends a veneer of undeserved credibility to the common conspiracy-theorist idea that “the system” is trying to repress them because they are brave enough to expose some uncomfortable truth. If we incarcerated those on the fringe who publicly state that President Obama is turning the United States into a 21st century fascist dictatorship, it would simply confirm to them their views and thus waste public money on giving those folks some useful propaganda material.
As many people point out, civil liberties don’t come without consequences. The price we pay for civil liberties is putting up with people who promote methods or beliefs we disagree with. Sometimes that price is very real, as when a book or speaker convinces their audience to adopt certain bigoted ideas, or when a group of dissenters decides to inappropriately ruin a positive experience for numerous other people, doing damage to their own cause as well as the institutions they represent. Other times that price is no price at all — or rather a net gain — when obviously indefensible beliefs are duly discredited and cast away.
The job of an open society isn’t to coddle its citizens, insulating them from any sort of personal discomfort or challenge to their worldview. It’s to present them with a bombardment of ideas, from which they can emerge as intelligent, engaging and questioning individuals — or not. The aphorism “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” may not apply to losing a limb, but it certainly does apply to free and democratic society in the case of free speech.
