Freedom of Speech...Maybe?

I have written in this space before about my tormented opinions on the subject of free speech. On the one hand, I absolutely agree with John Stuart Mill, who maintained that even offensive ideas should be freely aired so that they can be exposed and refuted. On the other hand, some free speech is so far divorced from good sense and good manners that I wish it were legal to wrap the offenders' heads in duct tape just to shut them up.

Freedom of speech doesn't equate to freedom of smart, I always say, and two recent articles brought this topic to mind again.

The first, by Alan Gomez in yesterday's issue of USA Today, looked at the court ruling against the members of the Westboro Baptist Church who demonstrate at military funerals with signs like "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers." As examples of tasteless and offensive speech go, disrupting a funeral ranks pretty high on the list. But did the court, in trying to protect the families of dead soldiers, step on the free-speech rights of the church members? The answer, sadly, is yes.

The other article, by Bruce Thornton, compared Columbia University's decision to allow Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to speak on campus with the decision by the University of California at Davis to cancel an appearance by former Harvard president Lawrence Summers because of indignation over his 2005 comments about the relative underrepresentation of women in the sciences. He asks what honest purpose is served by providing a platform to a ludicrous buffoon like Ahmedinejad when a respected scholar like Summers is denied the right to speak simply because some parts of the university population find his ideas to be distasteful.

Now I'll grant you that comparing these two situations - the funeral demonstrations and the university speech invitations - is a little like comparing apples and oranges. The first deals with the heavy hand of the government coming down to directly prevent the free expression of an idea, however distasteful. The other deals with the prevention of free expression in an academic environment - which is where one might most expect free speech to be vigorously upheld. Both, however, demonstrate the level to which our ability and willingness to refute offensive beliefs has been undermined. It's easier to shout down someone with whom you disagree than it is to argue with him (or her) - you don't have to think, all you have to do is make noise loud enough to drown out what you don't like.

As Mr Thornton points out, "Now(adays) an idea's political correctness is the basis of evaluation, rather than its contribution to revealing truth and its fidelity to the university's standards for serious thought."

I personally think the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrators are offensive and disgusting morons without the least shred of common decency and respect for the grief of others. But for better or for worse, the framers of our Constitution granted them the right to express their opinions, however stupid they may be. It's up to other people like you and I to meet such people on the level field of ideas and expose them for the intellectually and morally bankrupt clowns they are. By the same token, you may disagree with Lawrence Summers' willingness to discuss the underrepresentation of women in science, mathematics, and engineering ... but women are underrepresented there nevertheless. Do we solve the problem by shouting down the one who exposes it, or by tackling the issue and deciding what to do?

Free speech isn't always pretty, but it's always necessary. Let the morons have their say, then expose them for what they are on the basis of rational argument, not mindless noise.

Otherwise, the next person to be shouted down might be you.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo