We live in a great Melodrama. More and more we exaggerate ourselves and our lives. We may have forgotten what drama and tragedy really are in our self-importance and self-pity. We've experienced real ostracism and purges in the past, as practiced by authoritarian and totalitarian governments. For example, the show trials held during Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union, or the Cultural Revolution in China. At least for now, those who disagree with others aren't being sent to reeducation camps or the Gulag. It's silly to compare the purges of the past to Cancel Culture.
"Cancel Culture" is a current catch-phrase, intended to describe the expression of outrage at particular views combined with conduct directed to suppress them, in various ways. Predominately through boycott and efforts to assure the views in question aren't expressed through, e.g., cancellation (naturally enough) of appearances or opportunities for communication. It apparently is most seen in the halls of academia but finds its way, as all things do, to the media, social and traditional, and is noted among those exercising the right of assembly, those in politics, those in entertainment.
The purported existence of Cancel Culture as a rampant "thing" has triggered claims that "free speech" is in danger, or that this "culture" is contrary to it. "Free speech" itself is little understood by many, as I've complained more than once in this blog. Commonly understood, "free speech" bears little resemblance to the legal right protected by the First Amendment, as it is instead apparently the belief many hold that each and everyone of us must be allowed to express whatever we may think or believe at any time and any place, no matter what it may be.
Cancel Culture sometimes seems to be associated with the need, at least in the academy, for "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" intended to protect those who may find certain speech or expression offensive, or provide them with warning allowing them to prepare to be offended. Providing such things has also been subject to attack by the proponents of "free speech" and perhaps those who believe that providing such protection is unwise and impractical as people will be offensive in some manner to some of us at all times, and there should be no expectation of protection.
Cancel Culture as a "thing" is deplored primarily these days by those of the right-wing (I don't like to call such people "conservatives" as I think conservatism as a respectable political and social philosophy has all but expired in our Great Republic). But it's difficult to take those of the right-wing we hear most of now all that seriously, except perhaps as purveyors of lunatic conspiracy theories, at which they excel. It isn't that hard, either, to complain if lunacy is restricted. In fact, it's hard, for me at least, to be concerned if bigotry, hate, ignorance, or incitement to violence isn't tolerated but is instead discouraged.
Here we reach the problems associated with championing unbridled free speech. Some speech (meaning communication generally) is contemptible, just as people are contemptible. Why must contemptible, hateful thought and expression be tolerated? In what sense is it immoral to be intolerant of bigotry--of, for example, purveyors of Nazi ideology and those who praise the benefits of slavery and their promulgation of those views?
I don't think it is. Nor do I see any benefit from protecting the expression of those views, unless that protection is needed to assure that government cannot suppress expression generally. As a limitation of government power, freedom of expression is a necessary legal right. Because the power of government may be wielded potentially by anyone, and what they may think is appropriate expression will vary, government's ability to restrict expression must be limited even if it means that government will not have the power to repress certain objectionable views.
It doesn't follow that people should be prevented from expressing outrage or disgust at the expression of certain positions, nor does it follow they should be prevented from taking steps available, legally, to object to and protest that expression. It may well be that they may do so unwisely or unfairly, and nothing should prevent other people from pointing that out if they do so, provided they also do so legally.
Some claim that "Big Tech" or social media shouldn't be allowed to prevent those who espouse certain views from using the services they provide. It's contended their powers are so extensive now that they pose the same danger as does government when it comes to free speech.
I don't see how that can be, though, if the use of the services they provide for expression and access to expression is voluntary, and other means of expression are available. To the extent that is the case, then I don't think there can be a comparison. There's nothing that requires us to be on Twitter or Facebook, let alone use them to communicate political or social views, let alone use them to access such views. It's odd that those who believe in free markets should object to the freedom of owners of certain kinds of assets to impose rules for their use by others.
There is no right to free speech outside of the First Amendment in this country. That legal right is restricted. The tendency to claim there is a right to free speech beyond that legal right simply fosters confusion, and at worst convinces some that they must be free to say whatever they want whenever they want. Sadly, those who are convinced that is the case usually have nothing to say worth listening to.
No comments:
Post a Comment