Freedom of speech and expression

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".

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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. 

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.

"Normative" bullying - Part 1 - Basics

Definition of "bullying"

There is no formally-agreed definition for the term "bullying", and it is important not to define "bullying" too widely, for if the problem is over-diagnosed, it trivializes the problem and makes it appear that bullying is "normal", where the traditional line of thinking goes, "It's normal, therefore it's OK".  Thus, I am opting for one of the narrower definitions of bullying:

Taking advantage of a perceived imbalance of power to repeatedly hurt/intimidate others, using force, threat or coercion.

"Normative" bullying

In many cases of bullying, the bullies are violating social norms.  But in "normative" bullying, the bullies actually see themselves as enforcing social norms.  A group within society sets up norms (unwritten, socially-enforced rules) that mandate compliance with conventional/traditional ways of doing, being and thinking, and rejects those who fail to comply.  When these norms are typically based on, "Because we said so", rather than wider moral considerations, it results in suppression of individuality and creative, independent thinking, and, worse still, marginalisation of vulnerable/minority individuals or groups purely because they are considered to be different.  But when, say, a group of native whites ostracise a black person because of his or her skin colour, often, they don't see it as discrimination, they see it as punishing the black person for failing to comply with their rules, by analogy with how the police punish criminals for failing to comply with the laws of the land.

In those cases, the bullying does become "normal" as far as the given social groups are concerned, and so they argue, "It's normal, therefore it's OK".  What is then needed is for society as a whole to turn around on them and argue either, "Just because something is normal, it doesn't make it right", or, "It's not normal as far as we're concerned".  But in practice we often get a problem where it becomes "normal" because too many bystanders stand there saying "That's life" instead of being pro-active in trying to address the problem, particularly if the social group has a lot of power.

In my experience this argument can be remarkably persuasive.  For example, I, as a very moderate drinker, had experiences at university of being rejected by social groups because their rules were, you got drunk regularly and partied until 3-4am in your halls of residence, or you faced rejection for being different.  Many bystanders, and even some authorities, took the line, "Well, it's your fault for being different.  You know what the rules are, so if you don't keep to their rules, that's your problem.  Keep to the rules and you won't be rejected by the group.  The rules are the rules, and there isn't a problem with the rules, because if everybody obeyed them, there wouldn't be a problem."  It is the same sort of response as motorists get when they complain about being fined for speeding.  

In this case, using a simplistic "social norms"-based approach to tackling such bullying is unlikely to prove effective, because the bullies are actually the ones who are claiming to be enforcing social norms.  Moral considerations have to take precedence over the need to have rules and enforce them, otherwise we leave the door wide open for people with comparative power to perpetuate this kind of bullying.

Why all of this is important

The above form of bullying is a major factor behind most issues relating to discrimination (racism, ageism, sexism, homophobia etc- it crops up in every case of it).  For instance, a group of white people may consider it acceptable to ostracize a black person because the black person's skin colour and/or ethnic background makes him or her stand out somewhat from the rest of the group, arguing, "Well, it's his/her fault for not fitting in."  Groups may develop prejudices against those that they consider to be different in some way, and then accept those prejudices/stereotypes without question, with the idea being, once such behaviour becomes "normal", it must therefore be OK.

As a society, instead of targeting this type of bullying, we generally try to legislate for it, and focus anti-bullying/discrimination efforts primarily against activities that, in terms of harm caused to the recipient(s), are actually relatively minor.  We try to clamp down against use of language that can reinforce stereotypes, and make a big thing of high-profile "one person's words against another" cases, like in the infamous English Premier League row between John Terry and Rio Ferdinand where, as part of a foul-mouthed exchange of abuse between the two players, John Terry made an inappropriate one-off reference to Ferdinand's skin colour.  While Terry's behaviour was unacceptable, it was hardly likely to be as damaging as cases where black people are routinely marginalized by social groups because of their skin colour, and yet it got far more attention.  As a result, the general public become in danger of being branded racists for making one-off misjudgements when they lose self-control in an argument, while groups that continue to marginalize ethnic groups for being different continue to get away with it because they argue that their behaviour is enforcing social norms (whereas in the above case John Terry was clearly violating social norms) and take in bystanders by arguing that "that's life" and "rules are rules".

All of this creates a public dislike of "political correctness" and related policies, which in turn damages public support for efforts to make headway against this type of bullying.