Photo by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash
I made the mistake recently of getting into an argument with a minor celebrity on Twitter.
I don't call him a minor celebrity as an insult. I really enjoy his work and used to listen to his podcast religiously when I had a much longer commute, but he is a minor celebrity in that I imagine only a select few of you would know who he is.
But he had put something up talking about how Facebook had every right to ban Alex Jones from their platform since the first amendment doesn't guarantee freedom from consequences, just that the government can't punish you for political or religious speech.
To his credit, he is technically correct. The first amendment only applies to how the government can respond to your speech, not to how everyone else can. Including private companies.
I asked what I thought was a simple question, and I want to further express this idea now: How free is our speech if we have private companies constantly banning it?
To put that another way, how free is free speech if we, as a society, are giddy about seeing our enemies silenced in the public eye?
It is important to understand that the legal term free speech only applies to potential government interference. That is true. However, I don't believe it's enough societally that our free speech is only important to the government. Honestly, it isn't likely all that important to the government, but at least their hands are tied by the Constitution.
I think it is high time that our society developed a thicker skin regarding the speech of those we disagree with.
I'm not here to defend Alex Jones. I think he is an imbecile and a liar. However, I also believe that he deserves the right to speak.
Just like there are several ultra-liberal mouthpieces who I disagree with heartily, but I don't want to strip them of their platform.
When it comes to faith, I believe that there is one true God and one true faith, and that's the Lord Jesus Christ. Any other religion is a false religion with false promises.
However, I believe that those religions deserve the right to speak their minds and share their faith just like I have the right to share mine.
Americans believe in a free market when it comes to the economy, although this is less and less true every day, but we don't seem to care for a free market when it comes to the marketplace of ideas. There we want all kinds of interventions and corporate policies and sterilization against anything we disagree with.
In my mind, this propensity to ban unpopular ideas is because we don't want the responsibility of speaking our own opinions. We would rather let YouTube and Facebook silence our adversaries than be saddled with the burden of eloquently and intelligently rebutting them.
If you ever offend this guy...whoa. Good luck, man. (Photo by Daniel H. Tong on )
Listen. Torches and pitchforks aren't less dangerous when they come from the populace versus the government. If the mob wants you silenced simply because they don't like you, then how is that any different from the government arresting you because they don't like what you have to say?
Now freedom of speech should grant you quite a bit of leeway. People should be free to speak their opinions, even rancid ones. But they are then also expected to listen to contrary opinions without violence.
And what about hate speech? Do we have to grant vile, hateful words a platform?
To an extent, I think we should.
Again, nobody is saying you have to agree with them. Nobody is saying you have to like them. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true. If we are going to allow hateful people a (limited) platform, then those who disagree have the ultimate responsibility to step up and also speak their beliefs.
The best way to counter foolish talk is with wisdom.
Throughout history, the voices that were silenced by the powerful were the voices that most needed to be heard. Powerful people tended not to worry themselves over meaningless drivel, did they? But if they perceived something as a threat, they were quick to stamp it out.
Now I'm not saying that these hateful voices are right or that they need to be heard for the betterment of society. What I'm saying is that banning them gives those individuals the upper hand because they can turn around and say, "See? They are afraid of what I have to say!"
By banning some of these unpopular speakers, then we are playing right into their hands.
So if you need a more practical reason to support truly free speech, there it is. Banning people only helps them.
Beyond that, banning people who are your enemies now makes it easier for them to ban you should the balance of power ever flip.
Even though I find their methods repulsive and their content to be meaningless, I can't help but notice that most of these talking heads who get the banhammer are generally ultra conservative.
So right now we're sticking to the fringes, but you have to see how the armies of angry Tweeters want to see most conservative voices muted. That is a worrying trend, and it's the reason why I'm willing to give hate speech a little leeway.
How long will it be before speaking Truth from the Bible is considered hate speech? There are plenty of messages in the Bible that people don't like, after all. Liberals and conservatives alike. Sure, the way these messages are conveyed is often the problem far more than the content being spoken, but it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me.
It is also worth mentioning that conservatives were the ones to jump on director James Gunn like I talked about last week. That was just as wrong, since the only reason they went and searched out his old offensive Tweets was because they disagreed with his political stance. Gunn had said some dumb things, but he was only victimized for his liberal political opinions.
In the course of this argument on Twitter with a minor celebrity, a fan of his came at me with the statement, "I've heard people say racial slurs to these kids, and..."
Ugh. Okay. I can't believe I have to say this, but I will. I am never defending people who shout horrible things at children. I'm not even defending people who shout horrible things at adults.
To me, there is a huge difference between someone airing their opinion to the world at large and someone who is directing a vile opinion at a specific target. Consider the subtle difference between these two statements:
Media Personality on TV: "We need to close the borders to prevent illegal immigration."
Random dude to a Hispanic child: "You don't belong in this country!"
"In this issue...all the people you should hate." (Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash
Can you spot the difference? I really, really hope so. Obviously I don't think people should be allowed to shout racial slurs or demeaning remarks at people. And you know who else doesn't? The law. That's right. There is already a legal precedent that makes it illegal to incite someone to wrath through "fighting words."
I would argue that slandering a person in their presence, or slandering a child in the presence of an adult, is grounds for "fighting words." Even though I wouldn't necessarily condone physically harming someone who is yelling at you and calling you awful names, the law might just be on your side. Sorta. I'm not a lawyer, so don't try this defense.
I also may not fully understand the concept of fighting words, but it seems to me that fighting words are anything that are hateful of a personal nature, not a public nature. That's why you can't just punch a klansman for saying that certain races are inferior, but you can prosecute someone who says to a minority that they specifically are inferior.
I know it's tedious, but I believe that it should be. If we only defend the speech we like, then there's no such thing as free speech.
I also believe that private speech brought into the public unwillingly, no matter how vile and hateful it may be, is beyond reproach. Unless you are outing a crime, and not just demeaning someone's character, then that kind of activity is completely unethical and abominable.
I'm asking the hard-hitting questions...and yet I still don't have a blue check mark. Come on, guys! (And watch your mouth, Mr. Cruz!)
Of course companies should have the right to fire employees for saying unsavory things because there is a point where you just can't defend someone's speech. Of course websites like Facebook and YouTube should have the right to monitor the content on their servers.
What we don't need is to have people demanding that these websites shut down certain voices just because they are unpopular. Instead, it should be the responsibility of those who disagree to use their voice to explain why. That is the way free speech should work in this country, and I stand by that.
Even though the first amendment doesn't guarantee American citizens the right to say whatever they want in public, nor does it prevent private entities from responding in the negative to what people say, the first amendment should be a guiding principle by which we engage in private or public discourse and in how we treat our fellow Americans.
NOTE: I am not defending Alex Jones. I will probably never defend Alex Jones. It is very possible that he has individually done or said things that even I would say merit having his speech limited, but this is not likely. There are two truths I want to clarify here. First, I have never read or watched anything produced by Alex Jones, to my knowledge, and don't know his platform well enough to judge. Although my general sense is that he and I would not see eye-to-eye, I can't really say for sure and am okay with that. Second, I am much more concerned with the overall trend I'm seeing than with individual examples.