Libertarians and conservatives often say:
"You are free to speak. You are not free of the consequences." This is their way of saying, with approval, that the First Amendment only forbids the government from banning speech. But if you lose your college admissions, business partners, customers, jobs, platforms, or friends and family because of what you say, well then, tough. That's the "free market" at work.
I disagree. While their interpretation of Constitutional law is accurate, the market is not moral, and not all consequences are just or conducive to a free society.
Whereas the First Amendment is a legal doctrine, free speech is a cultural value. And in a free culture, people do not dox or harass, bankrupt or destroy, anyone who expresses opposing opinions. They do not pressure universities, employers, service providers, or social circles to expel thought criminals.
The First Amendment guarantees a politically free society. But a
politically free society isn't necessarily
culturally free. Private sector actors, apart from government, can oppress freedom just as effectively.
During our recent
COVID hysteria, I felt as if I were living in Communist Romania, a nation I visited during the 1970s (and inspiration for my novel,
Vampire Nation). As I crossed into Romania, I felt the atmosphere grow oppressive. The same atmosphere I felt in Los Angeles in 2020, with the masks, and social distancing, and kneeling to George Floyd.
People often wore masks or kneeled not because the law demanded it, but because private individuals and businesses monitored and harassed those who didn't. An intolerant culture was enough to enforce compliance; no laws required. People who refused, or questioned the narrative, risked being harassed by Antifa, BLM, random "Karens," and various private sector busybodies.
You don't need laws to destroy freedom. Civil society can crush freedom without state intervention. Politically free people are not necessarily free.
A free culture values free speech for its own sake. It's a culture whose people proudly cite Voltaire:
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."Voltaire's statement might be apocryphal, but it's a beautiful sentiment. It conveys a generosity of spirit that celebrates not only the right to speak, but to be respectfully heard. Not to be free of disagreement, but free of harassment or intimidation. One does not express a willingness to die for a "right" that can then be so easily quashed by the private sector.
In the 1970s, public figures, conservative and liberal, often quoted Voltaire with approval. It was a decade when a Jewish ACLU lawyer, Aryeh Neier, defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois (the topic of his book,
Defending My Enemy).
Having seen Communism first hand, being the son of refugees from Communism, I hate Communism as much as anyone. Yet when, out of morbid curiosity, I
visited the New York City offices of the Communist Party, USA in 1977, my disgust was balanced with pride that I lived in a country so free that even the vilest of people could rent an office and appear on the election ballot.
But those were the 1970s. I no longer hear Voltaire quoted today.
On both left and right, there have always been people intolerant of speech. But they seem louder and more numerous than in decades past. They no longer hide their desire to "cancel," but boast of it. While the left tries to unperson "Covidiots" and "racists," the new Neocons (NeoNeocons?) seek to unperson those critical of Israel or the Iran War.
Filmmaker Sacha Baron Cohen has argued that the right to speak does not mean the right to a platform. Some libertarians would agree, citing the "property rights" of Big Tech platform owners. But those "property rights" rest on shaky ground, considering the internet was built on public utilities, or that Big Tech lobbies for
regulations that ensure their dominance and block competitors, or is largely funded by government contracts.
Ironically, while a free culture protects
more speech than does the First Amendment, the private sector can, and often does, restrict for
less speech than is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, as our culture grows intolerant, government increasingly
outsources speech restrictions to private sector companies.
Finally, the debate over speech restrictions is not about about "offensive" speech, though it's often presented that way. People don't seek to restrict speech because it offends, but because they fear it doesn't. They fear their neighbor, rather than offended, might enjoy it, and even be convinced by it.
An intolerant culture is a low-trust culture. Free speech is seen not only as offensive, but dangerous. A view that is alien to the high-trust Western cultures of decades past.
I prefer we foster a high-trust culture, tolerating speech far beyond what the First Amendment permits. Not a low-trust culture with outsourced corporate censorship and private sector "Karens." Not merely a politically free society, but one that is culturally free. A society whose people might disagree with what they hear, sometimes vehemently, but always with a Voltairean spirit.
================
Posts
