‘If we lose the right to speak our mind, to claim our own unique and rightful place in our society, we will lose the society itself.’ (Me)
This is true not because ‘we’ are so important that society can’t survive without ‘us’. It is because if anyone within our society has the power to dictate who can and who can not have freedom of speech, then it’s all over, no matter which particular group or ideological viewpoint is bullied into self-censorship or extinction.
In short, and perhaps this is the best way I can explain my point of view here: If the radical right wing were attacking the free speech of even the most radical leftists, I would be writing this post in defence of radical leftists!
And despite my disagreement with almost every part of their ideology, I would be ready to take up arms in their defence if that became the only way to defend their right to free speech, and I really do mean that.
I don’t need to agree with, or even mildly sympathise with anything that anyone says in order to know that they have a right to say it if it is their honest-held belief. I wouldn’t want to live in a society where anyone is denied their right to express their opinion on any subject at all.
Even if I were not the free-speech puritan that I am, it would be foolish not to fight for other people’s rights to such things, simply because… if their rights can be taken away, so can mine. It’s just a matter of time.
Furthermore, the best way to deal with extremism of any kind is to address it intelligently and put it under the spotlight, warts and all. Censorship does nothing more than push ideas underground where they fester in their own echo-chambers and grow slowly like mould without sufficient oxygen to develop into something better, something that can withstand exposure to the bright lights of scrutiny, debate, and critical analysis.
Try as they might, censorship will never kill ideas. It can’t. Nothing on earth can do that.
It can only prevent the open and public expression of ideas, and even then only by draconian force. Humans will have ideas as long as we are walking upright. In fact, as was borne out by 20th Century history, the only way to kill ideas is to kill people, en masse and without trial. But without going to those horrific lengths, if someone has a ‘bad’ idea, the best place for it is out in the open where everyone can help them see it’s a ‘bad’ idea and persuade them to adopt a better one, if they can. And if they can’t, well maybe we should be taking a damn good look at this ‘bad’ idea because maybe it’s not so bad after all.
And this is one of the biggest benefits of not just allowing, but encouraging different views to be expressed. Sometimes, not very often but sometimes, one person’s ‘bad idea’ today is the next generation’s newest freedom, or new technology, or new medicine, or new art form, or a thousand other possible advances which all have to start somewhere. That somewhere is always a thought, followed by a conversation.
Were the Suffragettes expressing a ‘popular’ opinion? Clearly not. Pretty friggin’ popular now though isn’t it?! How could modern feminists like Cathy “Gotcha” Newman give everyone earache, bemoaning the imaginary pay gap and so on, if their beloved rules on what you can and can’t say had been in place back then? I know many protestors were rough-handled and even imprisoned, but nobody was imprisoned for their ideas or opinions, only their actions. Yes sometimes very minor actions, but the fact remains they were permitted to think and speak about their ideas even back then.
The idea of women’s suffrage was not only permitted, but few people know how Fawcette’s idea only came to anything due to the direct support and inspiration provided by… wait for it… a ‘horrible white patriarch’ called John Stuart Mill, an ardent advocate of women’s suffrage and widely deemed a “radical MP” in Parliament.
The more well-known violent and disruptive tactics were used later by Pankhurst et al, but the idea was given life by Millicent Fawcette who believed only in peaceful protest and “logical argument”. It’s a shame more isn’t made about that today.
Had her radically different opinions been stifled or criminalised as “hate speech”, who knows when or even if any Suffragettes would now have pride of place in every child’s history book? (The King’s Jockey could’ve gone home without his injuries too, yin and yang and all that!)
These things always begin with a thought being expressed via words. Fawcett was not prevented from giving oxygen to her ideas, as unpopular as they were (even amongst most women by the way), and she created the National Union of Women’s Suffrage with nobody preventing her from doing so. That was the birth of a movement which the mainstream absolutely detested with every inch of their being, not quite the case today though is it? It’s not enough to just throw out glib and empty phrases like “Things change!”, we must think about how things change.
What about that old chestnut called slavery that we look back on with so much nostalgic fondness now? Dang, if only new and challenging ideas could have been hushed up by Suckerberg and Co back then eh! I’d be able to get my fields planted so cheaply now, and my shoes are long overdue a polish! (Sarcasm alert)
Those few brave people who first spoke of abolishing slavery, all Christian Republicans I might add, were they expressing a ‘popular’ opinion?
It really shouldn’t be so hard to explain the importance of free speech, and the fact that it does need explaining these days is indicative of the desperately worrying situation we are in.
Nearly every single major advancement which has ever taken place in western societies, has spawned from one person’s ‘crazy’ or ‘detestable’ idea, an idea which thankfully (for us) they had the courage to express and were not prevented from doing so. Dissuaded by the establishment? Yes. But prevented? No.
People really need to think extremely carefully before outlawing ‘unpopular’ ideas or opinions. We wouldn’t be here today without them, and I have faith in humanity that it can deal with so-called ‘dangerous’ ideas, so long as it is given a chance to do exactly that, by hearing them rather than banishing them along with their owners, increasingly angry people, understandably angry too when forced to live as pariahs in their own so-called ‘free’ society.
It’s not a good recipe, even if it does serve the current ‘order’ to prevent debate and arguments that they can only win by cutting out the tongues of those who take another view on matters, all in the name of ‘progress’ of course. Debate never hurt anyone. It did however put paid to a few tyrants here and there throughout the bloodied history of mankind.
I sincerely hope it will do so again.