Freedom of My Mind

On the libertarian online magazine, I was reading an article called “Answers to 12 Bad Anti-Free Speech Arguments,” by Greg Lukianoff. I like to check out this magazine occasionally because I frequently find articles that are outside the mainstream of either liberal or conservative thought that can provide me with different ways of looking at an issue.

One aspect that I found interesting was his list of 12 arguments for censorship. I tend to approach the issue of free speech from the perspective that it is inherently a good thing, but this is not a helpful mindset when setting out to discuss why or why not something is in fact good.

Here is one argument for censorship that Mr. Lukianoff mentions (#3): “Free speech is the tool of the powerful, not the powerless.”

This argument (or assertion) took me aback and I want to address it here, though Mr. Lukianoff addresses it more thoroughly in his own article: “The ones who enforce the rules, are, by definition, powerful. In a country with strong protections for freedom of speech, the powerful are barred from using the legal system to attack the powerless for their speech. If you empower the government to censor, you are giving the powerful more power.”

To me, this is the crux of the matter. No matter how much good might occur from censorship, the cost will be greater, because no government has ever wielded that power well. Inevitably, harmful speech will become whatever is harmful to those already in power.

Another observation I have is that the only people who want censorship are those who think their beliefs are the ones likely to be endorsed by those in power. Basically, you think your beliefs are officially sanctioned.

I am in a different boat. I don’t for a minute believe that my political or religious beliefs are the ones that would find official sanction, so perhaps I oppose censorship as a reflex, a means of self-preservation.

It’s a useful gut check. Do you want certain speech curtailed? If so, it could mean that you think it is possible for speech you consider to be dangerous to be banned. This means you might actually agree with those who hold the levers of power. You actually hold the same views as those in power.

Either that or you are naïve and do not realize that your speech is exactly the speech that is going to come under fire.

I find an interesting analogy in Gordon S. Wood’s brief discussion in his book Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolutions. He mentions his belief that the reason that America did not adopt a state church was not because the majority of Americans didn’t want a state church. It was because the majority of Americans knew that if there was a state church, it was not going to be their denomination.

If there was a state church, it would have been Anglican. Quakers, Methodists, Baptists and many others knew that they would end up marginalized, harassed or even persecuted. So they opposed a state church.

Endorsing the curtailing of harmful speech is a bit like being an Anglican who wants a state church: you are pretty sure your views of what is harmful are the views going to be taken by the government, business, and media.

I am more in the position of a Quaker or a Methodist. Does that make me selfish rather than altruistic? Perhaps so; but don’t pretend that censorship helps the powerless.