I don’t like to discuss political issues in public, especially partisan politics. While you could argue that free speech is a political issue, I consider it more of a fundamental value. Free speech is the source of ideas—the root of all culture—an essential ingredient for all stories.
So let me climb on my soapbox real quick, and then I’ll resume focusing on pop culture and writing (and history, such as this recent post at God of the Desert Books).
Most people seem to think they’re in favor of free speech, but the real test is how they respond to ideas they believe to be wrong, hateful, or dangerous.
Whenever anyone tries to deplatform someone, get a person fired over an opinion, ban a book, or prevent a book’s publication, they’re demonstrating that they’re opposed to free speech.
Something else that is not in the spirit of a free and open exchange of ideas is trying to bully people into silence or compliance, such as by jumping straight to calling someone a bigot to discourage anyone else from voicing a similar sentiment. Or saying that a statement is a “dog whistle” full of “code words” for something nefarious. How on earth is anyone supposed to prove that what they said is not a dog whistle?
People are also free to remain silent on any particular matter if they so choose. I am not a fan of pressuring people into denouncing or condemning anyone or anything, which can take various forms:
Why aren’t you speaking out about this?
Why are you talking about Topic A but not Topic B? Don’t you care about Topic B???
I see you’ve associated with these people I don’t like—you need to address this thing they said!
That can get manipulative pretty quickly, and potentially create a lot of anxiety. There are any number of reasons why people might prefer to keep their thoughts to themselves. Consider: What exactly are we accomplishing when we leap to uncharitable conclusions about either what people say or what they don’t say?
And if someone says something we disagree with, we can discuss, criticize, protest—there are all sorts of ways to respond. Walk out if you must, but we do not get to show anyone else the door. We don’t get to make that decision on behalf of other people.
Let’s think this through. If we ostracize people for having the supposedly “wrong” opinions, what kind of society do we think we’ll end up with? What happens if we increase the potential cost of voicing differing viewpoints? What good ideas might never be expressed? If we’re hearing a narrower range of opinions, what might be the effect on our critical-thinking skills over the long term? Even if someone is objectively in error, can’t we still learn something by examining how they arrived at that conclusion? What purpose does punishing that person serve?
Once we cross the line into trying to prevent other people from hearing certain viewpoints, we are failing to uphold our free speech values. This does not automatically make anyone a supervillain for all time or anything like that. We all have our lapses and our errors. The important thing is that after the lapse, we forgive ourselves and each other and work to get ourselves back on track. No one’s right about everything, but maybe we can be a little less wrong next time.
In the spirit of free speech, here’s a button to encourage commenting:
UPDATE 10/26/2022
At God of the Desert Books, David Swindle and Sally Shideler discuss this post in a podcast, and I offer further thoughts in the comments there. For example, I didn’t address deliberate deception, which is a whole different ballgame and not in the spirit of a free and open exchange of ideas.
I appreciate the discussion and the push to clarify my own thoughts. Please give them a listen in the link below: