Responding To This Dumb Opinion Piece On Free Speech

snaves (39)in #freespeech • 6 years ago

The Star Opinion Piece

The title of this article from the Toronto Star caught my eye immediately as incredibly wrongheaded. I thought I'd go through it and respond to some choice excerpts. Let's start with the title: "Free speech fear-mongering is the elite equivalent of ‘It’s OK to be white’ posters" Suggesting that free speech fear-mongering is something for the elite is completely missing what is most important about protecting free speech. That is, ensuring free speech rights for all protects minority or disenfranchised groups the most. The "elite" are the ones with the power to censor dissenting views if given the chance.

So, who exactly is arguing against free speech rights? Is it the people protesting the platforms given to those who attack others based on their identity? Or is it those who raise the alarm bell at the protests, but mostly where white far-right speech is concerned?

When those protestors are demanding that the speaker be deplatformed, yes, they are arguing against free speech rights. Sure, the speaker may have other platforms available to them, but they were given the platform in question to speak to those who want to listen. Shutting the speaker down denies the right of the audience to listen, which is as much a part of free speech rights as speaking itself. Those being deplatformed on college campuses are certainly not limited to "those who attack others based on their identity." It is often claimed that attacks on closely held beliefs are attacks on identity. And what the heck is "white far-right speech" supposed to mean? Speech by someone who's white?

Is the furor really about erosion of free speech rights at all? Or, is it about censoring the protests, for fear that the gatekeeping role on what topics are OK to debate be taken away from groups that have traditionally had that power?

Yes, it is. No one is being forced to listen to a speaker they don't like. Protests are fine. What is not fine is when a speaker is deplatformed or an event shut down via the heckler's veto. Sometimes the school administration steps in and cancels the event due to concerns about possible threats or violence from the protestors.

Are school campuses obliged to host those who spout intolerance, and further legitimize their views? Could I read a few rubbish books on computer science and expect to give a lecture on Artificial Intelligence at Waterloo University?

No, but they should allow planned events to continue and do what they can to prevent undue disruption by protestors. Again, the assumption is "intolerance," but that's often not the case when protestors lack knowledge of the speaker's actual views. The second question misses the point so completely as to not deserve a response.

Free speech assures us of the right to repeat the original erroneous statement, but not the right to demand it be debated, nor the right to a university platform or space in a newspaper. Having those avenues closed off is not censorship. It’s common-sense rejection of falsehoods. We can’t debate the merits of white supremacy or phrenology in North America, any more than we can debate, say, allowing kids to smoke. These issues are long settled.

Free speech doesn't give the right to demand a controversial topic be debated, but it does give the right to debate that controversial topic. Taking away a platform, such as a university stage, that has already been given is censorship. The fact that an issue may be considered settled by society at large does not mean it cannot be debated. White supremacists still exist. How can you effectively argue against them when you have denied yourself the right to hear and understand their arguments? Knowing your opponents argument better informs your counter-argument.

Only the wilfully blind — or the privileged — would suggest that students need exposure to xenophobic or transphobic or racist ideas in university to equip themselves for the “real world.”

These terms are used to dismiss ideological opponents without any understanding of their actual views. They are used for their shock factor to rally protest against speakers. The author claims that protesting intolerance is not about being offended, but that's exactly what happens in these cases. People get offended by supposed "racist" or "transphobic" or "xenophobic" views and seek to shut the speaker down. They either don't know the speaker's actual opinions, misrepresent their opinions, or deem them a bigot based on statements they find unpalatable about their sacred cow.

Of what value, then, are such degrading debates on university campuses — or indeed anywhere — other than to suggest that intolerance is on the agenda again?

It should be remembered that offense is subjective and that there are those who are determined to be offended. No one is being forced to listen to these invited speakers. Free speech means that the speaker may be protested, but that does not mean shutting down an event and denying those who wish to attend the right to listen. It benefits all involved to allow the speech, listen if so inclined, and then question or oppose what was said.

Source: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/04/05/free-speech-fear-mongering-is-the-elite-equivalent-of-its-ok-to-be-white-posters.html