Whenever someone is presented as an “expert,” an unpleasant odor permeates the room. It’s not that there aren’t experts in fields that involve expertise, but those fields rarely include such subjective issues as the value of the First Amendment. It’s not that there aren’t scholars, familiar with all the case law and able to list every circuit court decision mentioning Brandenburg from memory, but that has nothing to do with putting them on a higher moral plane when it comes to what to make of speech.
So when the interview presented Suzanne Nossel, chief executive of PEN America, as an “expert,” I started to worry. For one thing, PEN America hasn’t always demonstrated consistency in its approach to free speech, and Nossel, in particular, hasn’t shied away from wallowing in the gutter when it suited her purpose. Yet, here she was, being interviews, as an “expert” on Free Speech.
Persuasion: The issue of free speech seems to be splitting along polarized political lines lately. Can you explain what’s going on there, and what we need to do to ensure that that free speech remains an issue that concerns all?
Nossel:* That is a big concern that I have. Going around to college campuses and talking to young people, I came to worry that we were at risk of losing a rising generation when it comes to the principle of free speech. This is because progressive young people have come to see free speech invoked in relation to hateful speech as a smokescreen for racist or sexist ideas. If that’s the only context in which free speech comes up in your life, you may feel: “This is not something that has anything to do with the struggles that I’m waging. In fact, it’s pushing in the opposite direction; it’s protecting those who stand in the way of an inclusive and equal society.” Some free-speech defenders tend to be dismissive of that skepticism, and call young people “coddled snowflakes” if they object to hostile speech.
I think that’s a misreading. A lot of what can manifest itself in censorious impulses among young people is born of a noble instinct, which is to protect people from harm, to drive forward a more equal, inclusive society. Our job as people who care about free speech is to explain how the ideals of a more diverse, inclusive, equal, racially-just society can and must coexist with robust protections for free speech.
There’s a powerful case for the role of free speech in social justice movements—people lived this over the summer. Even during a pandemic, we saw this incredibly powerful racial justice movement take over streets all across the country. That wouldn’t have happened in a country that didn’t have a tradition of free speech protections. It was far from perfect—there were a lot of violations that we at PEN America documented, and disturbing revelations of the lack of familiarity that the police have with assembly and press-freedom rights. But nonetheless, the movement went forward, and has been so consequential.
Free speech rights are essential to the causes that a lot of young people are waging. I also think on the right, there’s this idea I heard people at the Republican National Convention last summer claim, to be the party of free speech. That’s hypocritical if you look at the Trump administration’s record, its treatment of the press, and its efforts to muzzle certain ideas on college campuses, and a whole series of ways in which free-speech rights were trampled during that time. But I think it’s also an unhelpful framing, because it turns a lot of people off. Ultimately, we need free speech to be a cause that transcends party politics.
The old adage is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. To the extent her argument is that there is a need to make progressive young people appreciate that free speech serves their cause, that’s fine but banal. They don’t want to censor their speech because their speech is the good speech and why would anyone want to censor good speech. Duh. It’s only the bad speech that needs to be censored. Double Duh.
Are these coddled kiddies or servants of a noble cause who just need to be cajoled into seeing how their cause is furthered by free speech which, inexplicably, would also allow speech that’s literally Hitler and must be silenced at all cost? Discuss.**
*I’ve broken Nossel’s reply into paragraphs for readability.
**Tuesday Talk rules apply, even though it’s Wednesday.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Coddled kiddies, at the ones that we read about in the paper.
Anecdotally, my brother is raising 3 kids that have never heard a harsh word or opposing idea and probably won’t even after they “grow up” because they are surrounded by like minded people. He and his wife live almost entirely in an echo chamber. I have mentioned here before that they stopped talking to my dad after the 2016 election. They really only came around this past year when my mom had a stroke.
My time in a classroom has given me a little hope that students are not as “snowflaky” as they seem, but I am skeptical. Students really just want a grade and will say anything for a good one.
Who knows….maybe the zombies will come before we see the final collapse of it all?
For most younguns, college is where they are first exposed to new people, new ideas and the big ol’ nasty world. Unless they’re not.
Yes, a hallmark of the last administration was its proficient suppression of criticism from the press and its successful stifling of opposition from college campuses.
I can’t believe we haven’t gotten to hear these important voices until now.
It’s not their fault that the last admin was astoundingly ineffective at accomplishing its goal of suppressing speech. It’s the one thing both the old and new have in common, even if they disagree about which speech need to be suppressed.
There are 2 kinds of experts; the kind that do things and the kind that talk about things. One of these things is not like the other. One creates useful products or services; the other creates warm air.
Warm?
Hot air has a useful purpose. For example, it can contract heat shrink tubing when you are rewiring your alternator. The warm air that emerges from the blathering pie holes of so-called experts is totally useless.
Just fyi, masks are required in the hotel lobby and bar.
I appreciate the effort she’s making here. Young people just entering college likely don’t have a good understanding of the principles of free speech and the importance of applying them equally and neutrally. Also, like it or not, people often respond favorably to arguments that emphasize the benefit to them. To us, the point that free speech serves their interests as well as others may be banal, but to those not well-versed in the law, it may not be something they realize.
I don’t think they are coddled kiddies or servants of a noble cause. They’re kids who can use the guidance of those who’ve spent the time studying and thinking about free speech because, let’s face it, as much as we think it’s important and interesting to examine and debate these issues, most people aren’t going to invest the time to really understand and appreciate the principles of free speech. If we can get them to the point where they at least recognize their own self-interest in upholding neutral principles of free speech, I think that’s a win.
Enlightened self-interest is persuasive to an extent, but it has intrinsic limits when it comes to principles.
Sure, but from a practical perspective, how many of them will really engage with the principles? It’d be nice if every college student would develop a principled view of the value and importance of freedom of speech, but I’ll take enlightened self-interest if it gets them to back off trying to shout down every voice that doesn’t recite the woke catechism of the day.
The problem with the self-interest argument, which is what was presented to teenagers and college kids in the 2000s when the Bush admin wanted to crack down on opposition to the Iraq War, is that the common response to “We have to let Westboro Baptist and the Klan talk and march, otherwise just imagine Bush and Cheney prosecuting gay rights protesters and Iraq War resisters for their speech” is simply, “Ok, then when we take power, we won’t prosecute those causes we support and will prosecute the causes we hate, and we’ll make sure that the people who would prosecute supporters of our causes never gain power.” This response is especially appealing if you feel like the causes and parties you support are gaining power, and the ones you don’t are losing it, as if you can deliver a killing blow.
[This should be a reply to Philip]
There is a really cool way the make it a reply to Philip.
Once again I must thank our gracious host for reading such dreck and providing a cogent summary. I simply could not.
Give your self a tummy rub, You earned it.
“This is because progressive young people have come to see free speech invoked in relation to hateful speech as a smokescreen for racist or sexist ideas.”
It may also be helpful if they realized that their “progressive speech” is also seen “as a smokescreen for racist or sexist ideas”. But of course that would require the adults in the room to be able to recognize that also.