Whenever someone is presented as an “expert,” an unpleasant odor permeates the room. It’s not that there aren’t experts in fields that involve expertise, but those fields rarely include such subjective issues as the value of the First Amendment. It’s not that there aren’t scholars, familiar with all the case law and able to list every circuit court decision mentioning Brandenburg from memory, but that has nothing to do with putting them on a higher moral plane when it comes to what to make of speech.
So when the interview presented Suzanne Nossel, chief executive of PEN America, as an “expert,” I started to worry. For one thing, PEN America hasn’t always demonstrated consistency in its approach to free speech, and Nossel, in particular, hasn’t shied away from wallowing in the gutter when it suited her purpose. Yet, here she was, being interviews, as an “expert” on Free Speech.
Persuasion: The issue of free speech seems to be splitting along polarized political lines lately. Can you explain what’s going on there, and what we need to do to ensure that that free speech remains an issue that concerns all?
Nossel:* That is a big concern that I have. Going around to college campuses and talking to young people, I came to worry that we were at risk of losing a rising generation when it comes to the principle of free speech. This is because progressive young people have come to see free speech invoked in relation to hateful speech as a smokescreen for racist or sexist ideas. If that’s the only context in which free speech comes up in your life, you may feel: “This is not something that has anything to do with the struggles that I’m waging. In fact, it’s pushing in the opposite direction; it’s protecting those who stand in the way of an inclusive and equal society.” Some free-speech defenders tend to be dismissive of that skepticism, and call young people “coddled snowflakes” if they object to hostile speech.
I think that’s a misreading. A lot of what can manifest itself in censorious impulses among young people is born of a noble instinct, which is to protect people from harm, to drive forward a more equal, inclusive society. Our job as people who care about free speech is to explain how the ideals of a more diverse, inclusive, equal, racially-just society can and must coexist with robust protections for free speech.
There’s a powerful case for the role of free speech in social justice movements—people lived this over the summer. Even during a pandemic, we saw this incredibly powerful racial justice movement take over streets all across the country. That wouldn’t have happened in a country that didn’t have a tradition of free speech protections. It was far from perfect—there were a lot of violations that we at PEN America documented, and disturbing revelations of the lack of familiarity that the police have with assembly and press-freedom rights. But nonetheless, the movement went forward, and has been so consequential.
Free speech rights are essential to the causes that a lot of young people are waging. I also think on the right, there’s this idea I heard people at the Republican National Convention last summer claim, to be the party of free speech. That’s hypocritical if you look at the Trump administration’s record, its treatment of the press, and its efforts to muzzle certain ideas on college campuses, and a whole series of ways in which free-speech rights were trampled during that time. But I think it’s also an unhelpful framing, because it turns a lot of people off. Ultimately, we need free speech to be a cause that transcends party politics.
The old adage is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. To the extent her argument is that there is a need to make progressive young people appreciate that free speech serves their cause, that’s fine but banal. They don’t want to censor their speech because their speech is the good speech and why would anyone want to censor good speech. Duh. It’s only the bad speech that needs to be censored. Double Duh.
Are these coddled kiddies or servants of a noble cause who just need to be cajoled into seeing how their cause is furthered by free speech which, inexplicably, would also allow speech that’s literally Hitler and must be silenced at all cost? Discuss.**
*I’ve broken Nossel’s reply into paragraphs for readability.
**Tuesday Talk rules apply, even though it’s Wednesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment