On freedom of speech

(originally published Nov. 14, 2012)
Rather than paraphrase my old professor, I'm opening this note by suggesting you read his blog post to get a background in what I have to say, because rather than repeat him, I'm going to build on his words.  http://measureofdoubt.blogspot.ca/2010/03/coulter.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well everyone, unsurprisingly, we did it again: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/13/fordham-college-republicans-rescind-invitation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Excuse me if I end up sounding prophetic - I have an enormous personal investment in what follows*

Since the emergence of the earliest democracies, dialogue has played a vital role in shaping and facilitating our existences.  The essential role of free and open dialogue in political culture cannot be underscored enough.  Without it, power will inevitably shift from the hands of the many to the few, and eventually, the one.

As such, in order for democracies to function effectively, dialogue must be free from repression.  It is the former necessity that has manifested in rights codes and constitutions globally that have enshrined laws that protect freedom of speech.

There is no greater threat to human and global development than repression.  It has been wielded by every institution from the church to totalitarian dictatorships in order to consolidate power through the disempowerment of the masses.  "Knowledge is power" in every sense of the phrase.

Let me make myself clear - I am no libertarian - but when we accuse another individual or group of hate speech, we are participating in this repression.  There is no greater hypocrisy, especially, no greater threat to our species and the planet, than when those claiming to represent the politically Left repress those they don't agree with, because they don't share their values.  These same people preach unity, yet aren't prepared to dialogue.  They preach equity, yet won't share their liberty.  They preach progress, yet refuse to move forward together.

How  can they ever hope to create real change, if they're unprepared to have a free, open, and respectful dialogue with everyone?  Is this not the foundation of a real effective democracy?

"Hate-speech" represents one of the immediate counters to my former line of argument, which my professor also addressed.  There are very few people in this world who maliciously assault others for no reason at all.  As I've argued in my other notes, we usually act in such a way to protect or enact our values.  Therefore, hate-speech is rarely a thing in itself: i.e. people don't just hate on other people for the sake of doing so.  They do it because some one or group's behavior or way of life threatens their own.  Hate-speech then, is not what most believe it to be: an objective moral judgement, but is simply a situational perspective.  Accusations of hate-speech represent one of the ultimate forms of repression, because those who would accuse others of "hate-speech" most often do so self-righteously.  In reality, they're doing more harm to progress and the planet than good.  As Robert Bolt's Thomas More pleaded, "give the Devil benefit of law, for [your] own safety's sake!"

Barack Obama (or possibly his speech writers) put it succinctly, "The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech."