Read on Twitter
***We may be thinking about speech - #freespeech and #hatespeech in an analog, retrograde way. Here is a very long thread that I am too lazy to turn into an essay***
Spurred by a convo I had with @its_all_goode_ (and to some extent @IonaItalia)
Spurred by a convo I had with @its_all_goode_ (and to some extent @IonaItalia)
The commitment to free speech by a government is something that should not be questioned. Clearly, this is integral to democracy because if a government is given the right to suppress speech, they will.
But the emphasis on protecting speech *at an everyday level* does not have the effects we think it does. We need to rethink the idea that a commitment to free speech necessarily leads to growth in knowledge. We also need to reconsider the link between hate speech and violence.
These assumptions likely held in an analog world, where there was less information available, and fewer information sources - a few printing presses, then a few radio stations, then a few TV stations. They do not hold in a digital, world where anyone can be a content creator.
In an analog world, a racial epithet uttered in someone's face meant quite a bit. It was likely a clear sign the person was "hateful." Or a homophobic slur printed in a newspaper read by 30% to 40% of the population can be very impactful.
But these slurs in a digital world mean a whole lot less. How "hateful" is a secret recording of someone using a racial slur as a joke amongst friends? How homophobic is a joke dug up from a Twitter feed ten years ago?
The irony is that while we can document so many cases of hate because of digital technology, it is likely that people in Western society are less hateful than at any time in history. We may need to change the way we think about what is "hateful." Some things are, most are not.
In an analog world, it was imperative for citizens to demand free speech because there was a bottleneck of information. If you didn't get a variety of views from TV/radio/newspaper, well you didn't get it. This could certainly lead to a stifling of intellectual debate.
In the digital world, there is no shortage of content and ways to share that content. As long as a government does not get in involved, no interest group can genuinely stamp out the ideas of another interest group (even neo-nazis have spaces online).
In fact, we might actually have *too many* outlets, and they have contributed to our polarization. And so the irony is that in a time when people are concerned about free speech stifling debate, we may have so many ideas out there that they are actually hurting our democracy.
The question may then move to academia. Especially classrooms. Shouldn't there be "free inquiry" and "many sides" in a classroom?
A bottom-up approach to this issue is the best way. The same way an economist may argue that a business owner knows more than anyone else about how their business should work (thus justifying less government intervention), the same should go for what happens in a classroom.
The first and final question should be: have I taught my students what I think they should know? That professor can balance free speech and hate speech using her best judgment.
If a professor judges that certain topics should be off-limits because they may make a classroom toxic, then that is her choice in that class. If a teacher thinks that bringing in controversial topics will further the understanding of her subject, then that is her choice. (END)
