In the last few days, two respected media outlets have published opinion pieces extolling nearly unlimited freedom of speech—including speech that denigrates or satirizes religion.
The first is by Steve Pinker in today’s Boston Globe, “Why free speech is fundamental.” It’s worth a read since Pinker, as always, clarifies controversial issues with style, panache, and thoughtfulness. He gives three reasons why free speech is indeed fundamental, and you’ll have to read the editorial (free online) to see them. I’ll just give his Reason #1, and add a few short excerpts:
The first reason is that the very thing we’re doing when we ask whether free speech is fundamental — exchanging and evaluating ideas — presupposes that we have the right to exchange and evaluate ideas. In talking about free speech (or anything else) we’re talking. We’re not settling our disagreement by arm-wrestling or a beauty contest or a pistol duel. Unless you’re willing to discredit yourself by declaring, in the words of Nat Hentoff, “free speech for me but not for thee,” then as soon as you show up to a debate to argue against free speech, you’ve lost it.
He then levels his aim at the intellectual vacuity of “other ways of knowing,” implying something dear to my heart: the incompatibility of faith and reason (or, if you will, science and religion):
Perhaps the greatest discovery in human history — one that is prior to every other discovery — is that our traditional sources of belief are in fact generators of error and should be dismissed as grounds for knowledge. These include faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, augury, prophesy, intuition, clairvoyance, conventional wisdom, and subjective certainty.
How, then, can we know? Other than by proving mathematical theorems, which are not about the material world, the answer is the process that the philosopher Karl Popper called conjecture and refutation. We come up with ideas about the nature of reality, and test them against that reality, allowing the world to falsify the mistaken ones. The “conjecture” part of this formula, of course, depends upon the exercise of free speech. We offer these conjectures without any prior assurance they are correct. It is only by bruiting ideas and seeing which ones withstand attempts to refute them that we acquire knowledge.
This, in a nutshell, is the thesis of The Albatross; and I wonder how the good citizens of Boston will regard the paragraph about “traditional sources of belief, given that the primary one is religion?
Finally, accommodationists won’t take kindly to Pinker’s claim about the history of arguments about the geocentric Solar System:
Once this realization sank in during the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, the traditional understanding of the world was upended. Everyone knows that the discovery that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice-versa had to overcome fierce resistance from ecclesiastical authority.
Well, not everyone knows that. Ask Ronald Numbers, Michael Ruse, or the many accommodationists who people the National Center for Science Education. To these people, who are deeply wedded to the idea that science and religion are compatible, the notion that Galileo and Copernicus’s views were anathema to the Church on religious grounds is wrong. It was, instead, culture, personal animosity, of even a clash of science versus science! I see such a stand, refusing to indict religious dogma, as intellectually dishonest: one taken to further a political tactic of not alienating the faithful. But that’s my hobbyhorse, not Pinker’s.
*******
The other opinion piece about free speech is in The Economist: “Freedom of Speech: First—and last—do no harm.” (As is the magazine’s custom, the author isn’t identified.) I don’t know the politics of this magazine, but their stand on free speech—with a few exceptions like child pornography and speech inciting violence—is uncompromising. And they specifically mention religion. Some excerpts:
The Economist believes the right to free speech should be almost absolute.
Begin with the obvious controversy: blasphemy. The pope last week sympathised with those who feel compelled to react to perceived slights against Islam. Disparage another’s faith, he said, and you “can expect to get punched”. Not only were his comments a little unChristian, they were also deeply mistaken. Few subjects demand scrutiny as urgently as does religion—which, erroneously or otherwise, is invoked in conflicts and disputes around the globe. Muslims themselves forcefully, sometimes lethally, debate interpretations of their creed. Any censorship regime that exempts Islam or other religions from searching commentary is perverse.
Those are strong words! The piece even opposes the many European and Canadian laws against so-called hate speech, a stand with which I agree completely:
It is, for example, understandable that denying the Holocaust is an offence in several European countries, but it is also anachronistic: the evidence requires no help from the law to overwhelm the deniers. Geert Wilders, a disreputable far-right politician, should not face prosecution, as he now does, for pledging to reduce the number of Moroccans in the Netherlands. Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a comedian, should not have been arrested for flippantly associating himself with one of the Paris killers. Likewise, Islamist zealots are entitled to exploit the West’s freedoms to decry its decadence. Free societies are strong enough to absorb and discredit these idiocies.
They wind up calling for less willingness of journalists to capitulate to religious cries of “I’m offended!”, as in the case of Muslims rioting over the Charlie Hebdo and Jyllands-Posten cartoons. That cowardly capitulation, seen in (among others) the BBC, the Guardian, and Yale University Press, leads, says the article, to a “spiral of censorship”:
Take into account every fragile sensibility or unintended consequence on the other side of the world, and public discourse will shrink to vanishing.
And that is Pinker’s First Reason. You college students who decry “hate speech” or “offensive speech,” as has happened on my own campus, pay attention!
h/t: Marco
sub
//
sub
Every college campus has an unwritten list of groups against which excessive use of hate speech is approved.
As a privileged white male, I assume I am on the unwritten list … ?
I was told by my fellow philosophy undergrad students that all of the problems in our present world come from dead white European males. This judgement arose twenty years, during the PC crusades. I am not sure many hold this view any longer.
That’s good to hear. I can sympathize with the paleo PC attitude, since they needed to break through a lack of consciousness about the role of white privilege – but of course pinning “all” problems on an entire class of people is no better than thinking they (uh, we) caused “none” of them.
Aussie comedian Aamer Rahman’s routine “Reverse Racism” gets to the heart of racial privilege and the lack of awareness among privileged classes in a way that is both funny and thought-provoking. It’s good, I think, for society to wrestle with the issue, and for people to consider how they got what they have – I think dialog and debate is the best medicine for the disease of privilege, not demonization, for sure.
“dead white European males.”
Living white European males seem to manage to cause their share of problems.
I had that at my University. There were Christian organisations which held events whereby all sorts of nasty things were said about atheists (we’re only atheists because we want to keep sinning) and gays, yet I couldn’t get my article decrying such hypocrisy published at the varsity newspaper because they didn’t want to stir up trouble.
Atheists have been in a free fire zone as long as I have been alive.
Depending on where you are at any moment, Fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, White males, blonde women, Muslims, Mormons, black men, black women, unemployed people, communists, socialists, Democrats.
At this moment on campus, it appears to be white men, supporters of Israel, Republicans. Your list may vary.
My point is that political correctness never includes the right to criticize the currently sacred cows. The list changes from decade to decade.
On US TV, men with complete genitals (“uncircumcised”) are one such free-fire zone. See http://www.circumstitions.com/tv-thatthing.html for documentation. I hesitated to raise this, then realised that my very hesitancy is part of the issue.
Well, people are free to “decry,” it’s taking the decrying to the level of ostracization and censorship that’s a big problem. The Bill Mahr and Sam Harris dustup is a particularly unfortunate example because their words were also mischaracterized and the mischaracterizations were the subject of the decrying.
I think the second editorial puts the nub of l’affaire Hebdo in just about the most concise and eloquent way I have seen. Excellent.
The other opinion piece about free speech is in The Economist: “Freedom of Speech: First—and last—do no harm.” (As is the magazine’s custom, the author isn’t identified.) I don’t know the politics of this magazine,
The Economist recently appointed a woman as editor in chief. Unlike The Guardian, which does a lot of whining about sexism, The Economist simply found the best person for the job, who happened to be a woman.
That’s Zanny
I just realized that you may have thought that I was saying that appointing a woman to this role was zanny. The name of the woman who was appointed is Zanny Minton Beddoes.
😐
I’d say “The Economist” was classically liberal in the Adam Smith/John Stuart Mill tradition.
An often overlooked function of free speech is that of a noose by which evil both announces and hangs itself in public scrutiny.
I think it is useful to distinguish between speech that may give ‘offence’ -which I think should be totally allowed, if not encouraged- and actual hate speech.
The latter should be prosecutable, immo, *even* if not directly inciting to violence.
Speech that systematically ‘verminises’ or ‘criminalises’ some groups, generally without a basis in fact, but anyway expressed. ‘Hate Speech’, in other words, should be ‘leashed’. It is at least as despicable as religion, but even more dangerous, as experience in the 3rd Reich, Yugoslavia, or Rwanda thought us.
It is a ‘no brainer’ to me.
The law restricts speech that causes actual damage. Libel and defamation can run afoul of the law.
Incitement to riot or break the law can be illegal. Conspiracy can be illegal.
Stalking and bullying powerless people can be illegal. Intimidation can be illegal.
This is why lawyers stay employed.
Who shall you appoint, nicky, to decide which topics are forbidden, whose speech must be silenced? In a perverse way you might say I am in favour of hate speech, as I have always found that people with despicable, wrong-headed, or just plain wrong ideas tend to identify themselves if allowed to spout them at will. This is useful, as I may avoid them or counter them with better arguments and ideas according to my inclinations. It allows us to ridicule them when they speak up publicly, which we can’t when they have to whisper their hatreds to each other privately. We have hate speech laws here in Canada, and I wish we did not, if only because of the ratchet effect; they will never be repealed once enacted, however wrong they might be. If you have a right to unfettered speech you should enjoy it as often as you can, and don’t let it be encroached upon.
Anyway, I’m sure you weren’t intending to suggest that the events in the Third Reich, the former Yugoslavia or those in Rwanda would all of been prevented if only they had hate speech laws? Obviously, I’m happy for you to have the freedom to say that, but it doesn’t seem to reflect the way the world actually works.
Both articles do a good job of explaining what free speech really is and why it’s important.
It is always good to remember why it is you do not see free speech upheld and by whom. The pope would not have a clue about free speech and why should he. He is an absolute monarch of an institution of fiction. He is from a part of the world that never had such a thing. You certainly never learned about free speech from any religion. He is about as well equiped to explain free speech as he is to explain marriage.
Just like Russia or their current top criminal. What would any Russian understand about free speech except he does not have it. Stupidity only shows up when it is someone such as here in the U.S.
“… as he is to explain marriage.”
Or pugilism.
/@
And most importantly, religions are all about power and control. Of course pappy’s going to argue against anything that might erode that power/control.
Free speech is contextual.
If my child was in the adjacent class at SandyHook, it is inconceivable to me that I could draw a cartoon satirizing the event with a caption like “Guns are for protection…mostly.” But if I live in some far-off community that has almost no gun violence and I am against gun ownership it is not difficult to imagine forwarding a cartoon to a local daily post satirizing a horrific event with the intention that the satire makes people aware that changes should occur for the better.
With respect, you are completely missing the point of free speech.
If free speech is contextual (with the context being what is conceivable to you) then it’s not free speech.
The issue is not appropriateness of speech, it is rights of speech.
In your example, you would have the right to say whatever you wanted about the Sandy Hook massacre, and if it was insensitive, or idiotic, or whatever, others could with good reason treat you with disdain.
But they don’t have the right to imprison you or kill you.
Sadly, Pinker’s piece in the globe has elicited a significant share of ‘yes butters.’ Sigh. Seems like some folks don’t get it. Oh, hi Nicky.
One slightly off-topic comment (but in the penumbra of the subject. Pinker says:
This is why, I think, reforming our relationship with Cuba will ultimately cause the Castro regime to fall and a more democratic form of government take its place. When the trade and travel walls come down, it helps people achieve what Pinker calls common knowledge: they individually already knew western democracies were better, but the oppression of the regime stifles collective discussion and action. It may be a one-step-backwards-before-two-step-forwards process, but I think ultimately open borders are – like free speech, and somewhat related to it – a win for more democratic and prosperous societies.
This is also my argument on why the Cuba deal is a good idea.
And the Internet – esp. social media – are great ways of making common knowledge common.
As oppressive regimes well know.
/@
* Agh. A grammar error in a thread that mentions the holy Pinker. The shame.
Well, seeing as how the ‘net is really a series of tubes, I think the plural is acceptable.
I’m confident that WEIT produces a sufficient quantity of cat speech to prevent a clog.
” . . . reforming our relationship with Cuba will ultimately cause the Castro regime to fall and a more democratic form of government take its place.”
I trust that that will happen. If I have read correctly, Castro’s predecessor, dictator Fulgencio Batista, was no more democratic and, as he was the darling of U.S. business, the U.S. government had no problem with his treatment of Cubans. (It’s on my long To Do list to become informed about Cuban history prior to Batista.) Perhaps the U.S. should have imposed sanctions on Cuba sometime prior to January, 1959, and greatly reduced the likelihood of the rise of a Castro. Apparently dictatorships are perfectly fine so long as they are not communist/socialist and toe the U.S. line, which the U.S. has enforced by intervention in the Caribbean and Latin America for the last century or so.
Cuba stands in contrast to Vietnam, which remains communist and with which the U.S. trades (does it have “trading partner” status? I’ve seen at least one “Made in Vietnam” piece of clothing), and where over 50,000 U.S. and other military personnel – and hundreds of thousands if not several million Vietnamese citizens – died. If the U.S. can make nice with Vietnam then why not with Cuba?
IIRC Castro was more of a political opportunist than a die-hard communist. He first asked the US to help him overthrow the regime. After we said no, then he went to the Soviets and sought their help. Its interesting to think what might have happened if we had said ‘yes’ and thus closed the door on Soviet influence in Cuba.
What seems to tick off US administrations from the Monroe Doctrine on is *independence*. Play along with the US, you’re ok. Play on your own, or with other movements or powers, you’re not. And this gets amplified into even “associations”. For example, during the cold war sometimes events to bring SU and US together were in Canada, which was criticized by some as being “soft on communism” just because we had organizations which thought we should talk to those who are doing things different, rather than point more guns at them.
“IIRC Castro was more of a political opportunist than a die-hard communist.”
I think I vaguely recall reading that somewhere. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
However, the average U.S. citizen won’t learn that from the U.S. media, eh?
Many of the contemporary “free speech” controversies are power struggles in disguise. One side uses speech to perpetuate inequality. The protest against inequality then morphs into a protest against speech. Or one side uses free speech to protest an imbalance of power; the other uses power to stifle the protest.
While the solution to this problem may be a commitment more free speech for everyone, we’d be foolish to ignore the power relationships.
I subscribed to ‘The Economist’ for two years so to me they seem liberal, but not ideologically. They generally attempt to use reason and evidence for their arguments. As for free speech, I did address this in my own blog:
https://thiscomplexlife.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/free-inquiry-requires-a-free-society/
A friend of the family works for The Economist. She’s extremely liberal but doesn’t suffer fools gladly. The last I heard from her they were genuinely agonising over whether or not to publish the CB cartoons on their cover. I can well believe that, with people like her at the magazine, the decision over whether or not to print would have been down to concerns over ‘muslim offence’ rather than safety.
Freedom of speech is fundamental to a free, open, honest and healthy society. When we’re free to discuss ideas, bad ones, like denying the Holocaust, racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion receive the ridicule they deserve. The ability to critically analyze an idea fully becomes normal and the best are adopted while those that fail are discarded, as in science. At the moment, the process of critical analysis is interrupted by a requirement to pander to powerful groups that have ideas that can’t stand up to scrutiny and frequently won’t let themselves be exposed to it. In the case of some, they actively prevent it.
The fact that once you qualify speech it’s not really free, was the point of this panel from a couple of weeks back.
http://pictoraltheology.blogspot.com/2015/01/no-adjective-required-or-desireable.html
“It is only by bruiting ideas and seeing which ones withstand attempts to refute them that we acquire knowledge.”
In the context of free speech this seems to me mostly a myth. But, of course, good science needs a liberal environment.
By battling boredom, free speech and freedom of expression can be a source of great entertainment. This gives me enough reason to promote them.
Sub
Great, GREAT post!
And now I’m off to read the linked articles…
This article has me thinking a bit about how
free speech relates to determinism. What is “free speech” if we don’t have “free will”?
What we say is in part determined by the legal, social and personal pressures put on us by the society we live in. If in the end we have no choice to write or say what we end up saying, can we be held responsible for other’s being offended?
Under determinism, all our agency talk basically becomes like Newtonian Mechanics after QM was discovered: fundamentally wrong, but still (within a broad set of boundary conditions) very very useful as an accurate approximation of reality. Agency language is a very useful model, even if its not theoretically correct.
So, if you’re a stickler for “correct” language that doesn’t misrepresent reality…well, you have a lot of semantic revisions to your normal speech to make. Changes that go well beyond just discussions of free speech. But if you value practical utility over theoretical correctness, there is no need to do anything about the conundrum.
Alternatively, it means *unconstrained* (by whatever authorities or powers are relevant). Note that these are *humans* and their institutions.
I remember a quote from one of Robert Heinlein’s novels: “One man’s religion is another man’s belly laugh.” Still appropriate today.
Sub
Thanks!
I am ashamed and a bit bothered that Sweden accepted “hate speech” laws a few years back. They do seem to have been counterproductive, they have been used by anti-immigration populists to build as strong a party that you can expect.
[Sweden is exceptional in that a majority, nearly 80 %, accept immigration. There were virtually no open anti-immigration sentiments until the 90’s, when the nazist parties came into the fore. The largest party, ‘Sweden democrats’, dropped (but of course not took a stand against) the nazi program, and is now ~ 15 % out of the ~ 20 % possible supporters.]
Immigration always seems to be the topic of all the Scandiwegian crime dramas – is it a big concern up there amongst the general public? Or rather, is it becoming more of a concern? If so, why is that?
Yes, great, but a bit misleading with respect to Canada’s hate speech laws. While a bit disjoint, their current status (including rulings with respecto free speech) is that you can’t promote genocide — the same way you can’t threaten an individual with harm — and in some circumstances you may not be able to defame groups — the the same way you can’t defame individuals. However, it is all allowed if it is in the context of opinion and debate. It is only in the conext of intending to cause harm to people due to their being part of the group. This is very legitimate as otherwise it would be a workaround for threats and defamation. In no way does it affect the freedom of speech in any way that free speech is valuable by both articles presented here. It covers the same territory as the argued limitations that are reasonable.
I wonder if Pinker’s remark about British libel laws being used to “silence” Holocaust deniers is in reference to the David Irving libel trial.
If so, it’s an unfortunate remark for two reasons:
(1) Irving wasn’t silenced.
(2) Irving was the plaintiff in the libel case, not the defendant: it was an attempt to use the libel laws (which are indeed lax) to silence Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, who’d called him a Holocaust denier. No-one tried to silence Irving: quite the opposite, in fact, since the defense relied on getting Irving’s own words into the record.
sub