One month ago I gave you my thoughts on Spiked
Magazine's debate titled “Is the left eating
itself?”, and in this video I'm going to
return to the scene to address one of the
secondary (but very much salient) contentions
within it – that being the feud between
Angus Johnston and Brandon O’Neil regarding
free speech for Nazis… this is “Censored
Speech – Debunked”.
“I’m an ACLU guy, I’m a First Amendment
absolutist guy, and as I was growing up, right,
thinking about the concept of free speech,
the place you would always go was Skokie,
right?
That was the example that you would always
give – that if you really were for free
speech you had to be for free speech of the
Nazis in Skokie… and, and the way that that
was formulated was to be for free speech means
to be most of all for the free speech of the
people that you hate the most (and the people
you hate the most are the Nazis, and so that’s
where you go)…
I think that’s wrong.”
So there’s the claim - Angus believes that
being for free speech does not mean being
for the free speech of those you hate the
most (“If you really were for free speech
you had to be for free speech of the Nazis
in Skokie [...] I think that's wrong”),
and here's the first reason he gives for his
position.
“I think that to be for free speech means
that you have to be for the free speech the
most of the people whose free speech is most
under attack, right?
If the people you hate the most are relatively
privileged (in terms of having the ability
to, er, to avail themselves of their First
Amendment rights), then they’re not the
people you need to be supporting the most
– the people you need to be supporting the
most are the people who’re most under attack!”
Now Angus goes on to give several other reasons
(including one in which he defends ANTIFA),
but here lies the first point I want to make.
Angus is conflating two questions - one being
“Is all speech protected by free speech?”,
and the other being “Whose speech should
we prioritise defending?”, and he’s acting
as if we must choose to either protect the
speech of those we hate, or the speech of
those most under attack, when this simply
isn’t the case.
If we say “All speech is protected” (which
is not the same as saying that all speech
carries no consequence, or that all speech
can be exerted anywhere and anytime), then
we get to defend our own speech, our adversaries’,
and those who’re most under attack (and
let’s face it, the latter two are often
the same).
Or in other words, if we say “Free speech
means free speech for all people and all ideas”
then priority simply isn’t a concern.
Now as a slight side-note, I want to emphasize
that the reason I’m using Angus’ defence
of this position (which is held by a hell
of a lot more people than you might think)
is because it’s a sophisticated rendition
(a steelman, if you will), but before we move
on, I think it’s necessary to give an example
of what this position looks like in practise,
because it ain’t pretty: “I believe in
open discussion."
"You believe in a platform for hate!"
"And oppression."
“A platform for hate!”
"May I respond?"
"No.
I'm not interested."
"I believe in open dis--" "I don't care what
you believe!”
“We don’t want you here!”
"You're not welcome here!"
“I will stand--" “You’re not welcome
here.”
"Just go away!"
"Go away!"
"Excuse me."
"Go away!"
"Go away!"
"Go away!"
“Go away!”
“Go away!”
"Go, go, go!"
“Nazi scum, off our streets!”
“Nazi scum, off our streets!”
“Nazi scum, off our streets!”
“Nazi scum, off our streets!”
So here we have someone very politely defending
free speech by holding a sign that reads “The
right to openly discuss ideas must be defended”,
and yet (because the protesters are against
the speech of those they hate) he’s been
silenced, physically manoeuvred, and called
a Nazi… again, for saying that everyone
has the right to express their thoughts…
now needless to say, I don’t like Nazis,
but for me the problem here is outrageously
obvious!
Anyhow, to get back on track, here’s the
second reason that Angus gave: “When we’re
talking about free speech and protecting free
speech we need to be very, very clear on what
we mean.
Because, Milo Yiannopoulos does not have a
right to speak at the UC Berkeley campus,
and I say that as a First Amendment absolutist.
Richard Spencer does not have a First Amendment
right to speak on any campus, and again, I
say that as a First Amendment absolutist.
The American campus is a place where it’s
a community, and it’s an institution – it
is not a place where anyone has an equal right
to speak.”
So first off: “So does Richard Spencer have
a right to speak at college campuses?
Turns out legally he does [...] Let’s say
that your college has a policy whereby…
a public college has a policy whereby you
can rent space, um, then Richard Spencer has
as much right to rent that space at a public
college as anyone else does, and you can’t
bar him.
And secondly (and more importantly), despite
Angus saying that when we talk about free
speech we have to be “Very, very clear on
what we mean” he ironically didn’t refer
to free speech… he referred to the First
Amendment, and they’re actually not the
same thing: “At the New York Law school,
a couple of weeks ago I was debating Angus
Johnston [...] and he describes himself as
a First Amendment absolutist... however, he
supports the new forms of censorship on campus,
like trigger warnings, or shutting down meetings
that are too extreme, and so on, and as he
said this I thought 'You know what?
There actually isn't necessarily a contradiction
between those two things', because you can
support the restriction on any government
intervention of censorship but also giving
a green light towards the more informal censorship.”
And so hence, this isn't a First Amendment
issue, it's a free speech issue…
Anyhow, to prevent myself from getting to
far ahead of myself, here's how Brandon responded
to Angus during the debate: “Erh, yeah,
I want to defend free speech for Nazis.
Ehm, because, the idea that you can have free
speech but not for Nazis is such a profound
contradiction in terms – that’s not free
speech that’s licensed speech.
That’s speech that you’re licensed…
that, er, that is speech you are licensed
to enjoy so long as you are not a Nazi.
That’s not freedom of speech, that’s the
end…
that’s the end of freedom of speech.”
Now I appreciate that it’s hard to hear
someone defend the free speech of reprehensible
people and ideas, and that on the surface
it seems like a moral and logical imperative
to silence them, but there’s several seriously
sincere reasons why we shouldn’t, and over
the years Brendan has conveyed them with eloquent
vigour!
For example, in 2015, at Oxford Union, he
gave one of the best defenses of free speech
I’ve ever seen (which I’ve linked in the
description and cannot recommend enough),
but in a nutshell he explained that 700 years
ago John Wycliffe was denounced and no-platformed
for saying that “Everyone should be able
to read the bible” because his speech was
deemed “An offense against the ecclesiastical
order”; that 200 years ago Percy Shelley
was ridiculed and no-platformed for saying
“I don’t believe in god” because he
caused “maximum offense”; and that 100
years ago The Chameleon Magazine was terminated
after just 1 issue for saying “A man should
be allowed to have sex with another man”
because it was “An insult to the animal
creation”; and Brendan concluded by saying:
“Giving offense is good – in fact it’s
essential.
Humans have long had the urge to offend against
the natural order, the religious order, the
moral order, and in the process they have
pushed humanity forward.
In fact, pretty much every leap forward in
history, pretty much every freedom we enjoy,
is a product of individuals having given offense.”
Now in reply to this one might say “Sure,
let’s have the freedom to offend, but not
the freedom to incite violence; the Neo-Nazis
are not just offending people – they’re
being hateful…”
But the problem here is that what’s conceived
as violent speech (or as it’s more frequently
called “hate speech”) is subjective; what
one person sees as hate speech, another doesn’t.
I, for example, see the act of advocating
Islamic sharia law as an incitement of violence
(because, to say the least, its establishment
would result in homosexuals being thrown in
prison or killed).
To me, sharia law isn’t just offensive,
it’s violent, and yet notice that I’m
not trying to ban sharia preachers… in fact,
I want them to preach their hateful ideology
in public so that people like me can address,
ridicule and destroy it.
Now again, one might reply by saying that
they wouldn’t personally call the advocating
of sharia law an incitement of violence, but
that’s actually the point… what is conceived
as offense and violence is subjective.
Now, trust me when I say that I don’t like
quoting a Fox News anchor, but within the
following clip Tucker Carlson simply nails
it: "And I agree with everything you said
- that is hateful and it's awful (I'm offended
by it)."
"It is."
"But really, what you're saying is that you're
offended... and that's the problem with hate
speech (this fake category that we've made
up all of a sudden) because it's entirely
subjective.
What's offensive to you (or hateful to you)
may not be as offensive to me.
We're both American citizens, we both live
under the same Bill of Rights.”
“I agree.”
"You see the problem?
So attempts by the Left to ban speech are
as bad as attempts from the Right to ban speech,
so why don't we just call it truce and stop
trying to prevent people we disagree with
from speaking?”
So there’s the first reason we should give
free speech to those we hate – offense and
hate speech are subjective (it’s a very
slippery slope).
The second reason is that it simply doesn’t
work…
“Stamping out the speech of those who have
abhorrent things to say isn’t going to work.
The reason that those messages are resonate
now has to do with the place we are in history
[…] The reason these people are now making
progress is that people are now listening
for those messages, and anyone who deploys
them is going to get a hearing, and so the
way to approach this is to look at the deeper
questions that have put us at a moment of
austerity that caused those messages to be
resonant, rather than the narrow free speech
rights.”
And the third reason to give free speech to
those we hate is because not doing so has
devastating consequences!
“If you want to see the danger of censorship
just look at people like Milo Yiannopoulos
and Richard Spender.
Their fame, their power (to the extent that
they have it), their influence, the fact that
you all know who they are (even though they
don’t have any good ideas) is entirely down
to censorship!
I honestly think Brendan’s so on the money
here – many of the Right’s current most
prominent figures owe their status (and in
some cases entirely) due to censorship.
Not due to good ideas or intelligible discourse,
but due to them being no-platformed because
they were deemed “offensive” and / or
“hateful”.
History has taught us again and again and
again that censorship often has a very heavy
price - it empowers the censored, and deprives
ordinary people (like myself) from defeating
bad ideas in the only way we truly can - in
public, with reason, rationality, logic, evidence
and consistency.
If you think someone has a bad, offensive,
or even violent idea, then let them express
it, because without it being public it has
no opposition.
The way we rid the world of bad ideas is not
by silencing them, it’s by discussing them.
Anyhow, I'm going to leave you with another
epic speech from Brendan, but before I do,
I’m pleased to announce that this month's
Patron of the Month is Daniel Martinez, and
you've won a copy of Richard Dawkins’ The
Selfish Gene (congratulations, and thank you
so much for your support).
And as always, thank you all kindly for the
view, and an extra special thank you to my
wonderful patrons and those of you who've
donated via PayPal.
“Freedom of speech is the foundational freedom
– it’s the freedom that makes everything
else possible; it’s the freedom, you know,
the right to vote, the right to association,
the right to political organisation, none
of those make any sense or are either workable
without freedom of speech – without the
right to say what you want, to publish what
you want, to distribute what you want.
So the fact that there’s a new left, or
students, or, you know, society in general,
that’s increasingly uncomfortable with free
speech should concern us enormously.
