Freedom of speech and expression is under threat due to our tendency to legislate for the minority who abuse it
No, I don't believe in unlimited freedom of speech and expression- it should be bounded by the responsibility to be considerate towards others and not actively encourage actions that impinge on others' freedoms. I have no problem with society frowning upon expression of views like, "X is inferior because he's black", for example.
The problem is a variation on the "legislating for idiots" problem that I have also blogged about. When clamping down against unreasonable speech and expression, we tend to feel obliged to show a hard-line approach, which means being willing to tarnish innocent speech and expression by association. Such an approach can be "justified" on the basis that "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" because "that's life", and/or by setting up rules that mandate it and then insisting that "rules are rules".
B. As a community we do not tolerate views that condone/support copyright infringement. Anyone who expresses such views will be banned.
A. Download copyrighted file P from file-sharing site Q. Here's a link.
B. Instant ban for A. That's the sort of thing that we don't allow.
C. I believe that copyright law X is too restrictive because it prohibits activity Y, and Y probably doesn't erode content creators' sales and benefits the consumer.
B. Therefore you condone Y, which is a form of copyright infringement, so you will be banned too.
Such "no condoning copyright infringement" policies are common on internet sites to guard against people like A, who could potentially get a site sued by copyright holders for posting links to illegal downloads. But they are also used against people like C when they try to speak out against what, in their opinion, are unreasonably stringent copyright laws.
B. We do not support reckless driving because of the way that it results in tragic loss of life.
A. I want to be allowed to drive as fast as I like, because I find it fun.
B. If you want to drive as fast as you like, go to a race track.
C. I don't agree with the progressive tightening up of traffic restrictions. While a minority do drive recklessly for pleasure, and I support clamping down against those people, a lot of people currently get enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner too. If the restrictions are tightened too much, this will be lost, and I don't support phasing out the recreational side of driving as part of clamping down against the minority who abuse it.
B. Pleasure should never come before safety. If you want to enjoy driving, go to a race track.
In effect, C's views are tarnished by association with those of A, since C is not arguing that "boy racer" type behaviour should be allowed, but is rather arguing that the freedoms of responsible law-abiding motorists should not be sacrificed as part of clamping down against it. I am very used to arguing positions like C and being dismissed simply with the one-liner, "Go to a race track."
The problem is a variation on the "legislating for idiots" problem that I have also blogged about. When clamping down against unreasonable speech and expression, we tend to feel obliged to show a hard-line approach, which means being willing to tarnish innocent speech and expression by association. Such an approach can be "justified" on the basis that "the minority have to spoil it for everybody else" because "that's life", and/or by setting up rules that mandate it and then insisting that "rules are rules".
Example 1: Clamping down against those who support illegal activities, and in doing so, stifling the ability of others to question the correctness of the law without being jumped on by association.
A. Download copyrighted file P from file-sharing site Q. Here's a link.
B. Instant ban for A. That's the sort of thing that we don't allow.
C. I believe that copyright law X is too restrictive because it prohibits activity Y, and Y probably doesn't erode content creators' sales and benefits the consumer.
B. Therefore you condone Y, which is a form of copyright infringement, so you will be banned too.
Such "no condoning copyright infringement" policies are common on internet sites to guard against people like A, who could potentially get a site sued by copyright holders for posting links to illegal downloads. But they are also used against people like C when they try to speak out against what, in their opinion, are unreasonably stringent copyright laws.
Example 2: We clamp down against dangerous activities and the expression of views that support them. As a result, those who speak out against the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders end up having their views stigmatised by association with those of offenders.
A. I want to be allowed to drive as fast as I like, because I find it fun.
B. If you want to drive as fast as you like, go to a race track.
C. I don't agree with the progressive tightening up of traffic restrictions. While a minority do drive recklessly for pleasure, and I support clamping down against those people, a lot of people currently get enjoyment out of driving in a safe and legal manner too. If the restrictions are tightened too much, this will be lost, and I don't support phasing out the recreational side of driving as part of clamping down against the minority who abuse it.
B. Pleasure should never come before safety. If you want to enjoy driving, go to a race track.
In effect, C's views are tarnished by association with those of A, since C is not arguing that "boy racer" type behaviour should be allowed, but is rather arguing that the freedoms of responsible law-abiding motorists should not be sacrificed as part of clamping down against it. I am very used to arguing positions like C and being dismissed simply with the one-liner, "Go to a race track."
Political correctness and avoiding offence
The term "political correctness" is often over-used. Here, I am thinking mainly of the philosophy where we outlaw language that can cause offence and/or encourage negative stereotyping of vulnerable groups, in the hope that it will make people question widely-accepted stereotypes and lead to a breakdown in values that encourage discrimination.
However, this policy encourages the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders. In the past, when bigots used words offensively, the general public would often start using them as more general terms of abuse and water them down, forcing the bigots to find other words to use abusively, such as when we cycled through "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" as terms for the mentally handicapped. But today, when bigots use words offensively, we tend to outlaw them altogether, which results in the bigots getting a much larger say in what words are and aren't acceptable.
However, this policy encourages the punishment of innocent people by association with offenders. In the past, when bigots used words offensively, the general public would often start using them as more general terms of abuse and water them down, forcing the bigots to find other words to use abusively, such as when we cycled through "idiot", "moron" and "imbecile" as terms for the mentally handicapped. But today, when bigots use words offensively, we tend to outlaw them altogether, which results in the bigots getting a much larger say in what words are and aren't acceptable.
Also, we often have too much emphasis on the "avoiding offence" aspect of political correctness, as opposed to the "avoiding inciting negative stereotypes of vulnerable groups". In some cases it is taboo to express opinions that are perfectly reasonable but might offend certain people, by association with related views that are unreasonable, such as the two examples that I provided above relating to road safety and copyright laws.
Of course, sometimes groups of people develop a hatred of a particular word because it is widely used offensively against them, and so it is only natural that if it is used inoffensively, they may misinterpret it and be highly offended. People do need to be considerate of this, and take some care with their use of language, especially slang, on the internet and around people that they don't know. However, when people use a word inconsiderately and without thinking, they should only get punished accordingly (in many cases, a mere warning would be the most appropriate) rather than being punished highly disproportionately by association with those who use the word as part of their oppression of certain vulnerable groups.
Of course, sometimes groups of people develop a hatred of a particular word because it is widely used offensively against them, and so it is only natural that if it is used inoffensively, they may misinterpret it and be highly offended. People do need to be considerate of this, and take some care with their use of language, especially slang, on the internet and around people that they don't know. However, when people use a word inconsiderately and without thinking, they should only get punished accordingly (in many cases, a mere warning would be the most appropriate) rather than being punished highly disproportionately by association with those who use the word as part of their oppression of certain vulnerable groups.
And yes, I am seeing a worrying trend towards organisations setting up rules saying that all usage of a particular word should be punished by association with its most offensive usage, and justifying them on the basis, "The rules are right because the rules say so, and the rules say so, because the rules are right."
Instead, I refer readers back to my article on normative bullying and suggest that tackling this problem is the best way of combating discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment