Why I have become a ‘free speech’ skeptic
By Tom Krattenmaker
August 11, 2020
Don’t you love it when people who’ve never evinced concern for freedom of expression suddenly yell “free speech, free speech!” the minute they’re expected to yield the proverbial floor?
When unserious provocateurs (hello, Ann Coulter) lose prestigious speaking gigs at universities and then complain they’ve been martyred by the PC police?
When someone in the public eye spreads dangerous nonsense—nonsense that could cause actual physical and psychological harm to real people—and then, when they face blowback and consequences, claim they’ve been denied their constitutionally protected right to speak?
No, I don’t love them either. It’s these ridiculous, self-serving invocations of a vital civil right that have turned me into a “free speech” skeptic. It’s skepticism that ought to be more widely practiced.
I state this as one who has the highest regard for the First Amendment of the Constitution. As a secular person whose nonreligious views would be silenced or punished in many societies past and present, I appreciate how freedom of expression and freedom of conscience have benefited people with minority views and identities. Free speech, I affirm, is crucial to a healthy democratic society.
But I cringe at the way it is used and abused today.
A half-century ago, “free speech” was the rallying cry of left-wing college activists, most famously at UC Berkeley. They challenged the loyalty oaths that muzzled their professors. They defied their administrations’ restrictions against political activity on campus grounds. They clamored to speak out against racial discrimination, American foreign policy, and the like.
These days, the loudest cries of “free speech, free speech!” often come from the right, and typically not in ways that demonstrate a sincere commitment to broadening the free-speech playing field. These cries are sometimes shouted in defense of poisonous conspiracy theories like the one that claims the Sandy Hook mass shooting was a hoax staged to discredit gun rights.
When entertainer Nick Cannon was fired by ViacomCBS last month over a remark on his podcast, his fans moaned that it was grievous violation of his “free speech” rights. But when you focus for a moment on what Cannon said, you lose sympathy. Cannon spun a dangerous, reckless conspiracy tale against a group of people—Jews—who have been demonized and discriminated against for centuries. If taken seriously, his words could incite violence against this minority population and, at the very least, impair their ability to participate—and speak—in the public square.
It’s a common trick among champions of the President Trump to portray him, and themselves, as victims of left-wing censors. Congressman Jim Jordan could be heard doing just that at the July 29 congressional hearing on the big-four tech companies, the Ohio Republican pressing the famous CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google to agree with him that the “cancel culture mob” was silencing conservative voices. Never mind that Trump has one of the biggest and most potent platforms in history and often uses it to misinform the public.
Not long before Jordan’s stunt was the much-debated letter in Harper’s magazine, signed by an impressive lineup of writers and academics warning of a growing threat to free speech. What the letter affirmed—the importance of a free exchange of information and ideas—is valid and important. The problem was what the letter failed to address, such as speech that threatens the legitimacy of certain marginalized groups like trans people who are only beginning to gain a foothold in the public conversation.
Yascha Mounk, a professor and writer who signed the letter, claims the literati feel an unacceptable chilling effect “if we are always watching ourselves about what we are saying and how we are saying it.”
What an imposition to have to take care with one’s words!
Seriously, isn’t it just human decency and good citizenship to speak with care and thoughtfulness? And, if we’re privileged enough to have access to media outlets, to craft our words with due consideration of their consequences and the harm they might cause?
It’s true that so-called social justice warriors—or the “illiberal mob,” if you prefer—sometimes go too far, too fast in channeling outrage against speech they find objectionable. Organized drives to get people fired, for instance, ought to be reserved for extreme cases and repeated abuses.
But citizens are right to apply some critical thinking when “free speech” is invoked loosely and self-servingly. Millennials I know—they’re a generation less inclined to free-speech absolutism than their elders—rightly ask skeptical questions when they’re told that an objectionable speaker’s “free speech” rights are being violated:
Is the person’s message factually true, or is it distorted, perhaps even fabricated, for political or financial advantage? Is it really a violation of free speech if someone is denied a prestigious university speaking gig, or if they lose their media megaphone for using it irresponsibly? How will the speech of one person erode another person’s opportunity to speak? That last question is especially poignant if the person being sidelined is from a group that has not typically enjoyed equal access to the microphone for reasons of racial or gender identity.
Ultimately, the use and misuse of “free speech” is just one more example of our rights-obsessed culture spending way too much time proclaiming what we have a right to do and way too little time considering what we have a responsibility to do, for the benefit of our fellow citizens and a healthy society.
We all have a right to free speech. If we take it seriously, we will treat that right with care. And we will do our best to ensure it’s enjoyed not just by me and mine but by everyone who has something to say.