A Free Speech Culture Goes Beyond the First Amendment

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.

================ 

It’s Iraq All Over Again

In 2000, Bush ran for president promising a “humbler foreign policy.” He gave us the Iraq War. Trump ran as the “peace president.” Now he’s given us the Iran War.

At the 2007 Libertarian Party of California state convention, Wayne Allen Root was among the candidates running for the LP presidential nomination. By then most Libertarians had soured on the Iraq War. Some had opposed it from the start, but the war did have its “libertarian” supporters.

Root was aware of this anti-Iraq War sentiment, and so he said, “Iraq was the wrong war. Iran is the right war.” That didn’t go over well, and so he muted his “pro-Iran War” statements as we entered 2008.

Root is still out there, writing, and podcasting, and making media appearances. I hear he’s quite ecstatic about Trump’s war. Root finally got the war he wanted.

And once again, some conservatives have turned a Republican president into a religious idol. They’re saying that God has guided Trump into war. They said it about Bush, who was supposedly “God’s anointed.” But now it’s Trump who is “God’s anointed.”

After Bush took us to war, I remember Dennis Prager saying, in reference to the controversial 2000 election ballot count, that “It’s hard not to believe that God intervened to prevent Gore from becoming President. In making Bush president, God has given America one last chance.”

That’s pretty much what I remember Prager saying.

Ironically, all the conservatives I hear praising Trump’s Iran War have also long denounced Bush’s Iraq War (not at the time, but a least since 2016). That’s why they voted for Trump. Because they hate Bush and “the Neocons.” According to them, the Iraq War is Neocon. But the Iran War is MAGA and America First because reasons.

If you disagree, if you express doubts about Trump’s wisdom or good intentions, these conservatives become gripped with hysteria, and accuse you of TDS. Even as they hyperventilate and foam at the mouth, they accuse you of TDS.

And so I no longer argue with them. I did my part in opposing the Iraq War for much of the 2000s, even joining the big international antiwar protest in February 2003, before the first shot was fired. I have no illusions about being able to change anything at this point.

As for the Libertarian Party, it appears to be in greater disarray than it was 20 years ago, but perhaps it will be able to provide an alternative for those seeking peace. A recent statement from its national HQ is a good sign.

==========