London Review of Books: What are we allowed to say? - David Bromwich
The September 22nd issue of the London Review of Books contains an essay, What are we allowed to say? by David Bromwich on free speech. Bromwich advocates largely unregulated free speech. When I first came to DU, the rather strict regulations about what points of view could be posted bothered me somewhat. Surely a progressive site can allow unregulated speech. But, an internet site with unregulated speech soon degenerates into threads full of posts mostly consisting of childish insults and any attempt at intelligent discussion is drowned out. Bromwich doesn't really address such issues; but his essay is interesting and informative, and also fairly long.
An excerpt:
It is time to explain myself, Whitman says in Part 44 of Song of Myself; this essay is well on and it is time. The difficulties of legislation on speech have grown more complex with the elaboration of other rights, but in some ways we have never simplified enough. The freedom to speak ones mind is a physical necessity, not a political and intellectual piece of good luck; to a thinking person, the need seems to be almost as natural as breathing. How do I know what I think till I see what I say? The question applies not just to writing but to friendly or unfriendly conversation, or a muttered soliloquy. Yet the good of free speech has seldom been a common intuition, and it is not a universal experience. It matters to a few, much of the time, and to others at unpredictable times. Dissident minorities took the clearest advantage of this liberty in the high age of Protestant dissent and political radicalism roughly the three and a half centuries from the onset of the Puritan revolution in England to the height of the Solidarity protests in Poland.
The heroic picture of the individual heretic standing against the church, the dissenter against the state, the artist against the mass culture, has been fading for a while and we have not yet found anything to put in its place. Asked in a late interview how he fell away from his belief in Catholic doctrine, Graham Greene said he had been converted by arguments and he had forgotten the arguments. Something like this has happened to left liberals where freedom of speech is concerned. The last two generations were brought to see its value by arguments, and they have forgotten the arguments. Few have felt oppressed by the rigours of censorship; more have been interested in censoring harmful speech by politicians or members of the dominant culture (which includes white people of humble means). Taking note of the recent protests that forced the disinviting of commencement speakers at Brown, Johns Hopkins, Williams and Haverford, the censorious monitoring at Brandeis University of a teacher who said that Mexican labourers were once called wetbacks, and many similar incidents over the last three years, the sociologist Jonathan Cole pointed out in the Atlantic that the students at these elite establishments, including the most vigilant of the speech monitors, have followed all their lives a straight and narrow path. They have never deviated into a passion unrelated to school work, and have not been allowed, therefore, to live what many would consider a normal childhood to play, to learn by doing, to challenge their teachers, to make mistakes. They have always been on good behaviour; and they dont regret it. They are therefore ill-equipped to defend anything the authorities or their activist classmates tell them should count as bad behaviour. These people have grown up, Cole adds, in the years since 2001 when the schools and the popular culture, in America above all, kept up an incessant drone about personal safety, the danger of terrorist attacks, and the opacity of every culture to every other culture. It is a generation in which the word fragile is routinely applied to daily shifts of mood.
Few of them have had the experience of being a minority of one, or a little more than one. Admittedly most people have never been in that situation (including, perhaps, most of the people one might call good). But a new keenness of censorious distrust has come from a built-in suspicion of the outliers in public discussion. Social media refer to these people as trolls and sometimes as stalkers; any flicker of curiosity about their ideas is pre-empted by a question that is not a question: Whats wrong with them? Meanwhile, those inside a given group have their settled audience of friends and followers, to adopt the revealing jargon of Facebook and Twitter: a self-sufficient collectivity and happy to stay that way. To be friended in the Facebook world is to be safe walled-up and wadded-in by chosen and familiar connections. An unsafe space is a space where, if they knew you were there, they might unfriend you. As Sherry Turkle puts it in Reclaiming Conversation, a penetrating study of the change of manners brought about by social media: If you grew up in the world of I share, therefore I am, you may not have confidence that you have a thought unless you are sharing it. And it is a full-time regime for the young. Most are already sleeping with their phones, Turkle says of the children and teenagers she interviewed. So, if they wake up in the middle of the night, they check their messages. But these are messages sent and received within the group; outside, all is uncertain, obscure, and apt to bring on sensations of fragility. Adversarial stimuli are to be ignored where possible and prohibited where necessary.
Within such a group, spontaneous speech unconditioned by the context of sharing and the previous expectations of the group is nothing like a physical need. The very idea of membership, of affinity and loyalty, reduces the likelihood of an infraction that could carry an unpleasant surprise. Where Facebook has a thumbs-up symbol meaning I like this and kind of agree! but no thumbs-down, who will risk an exorbitant word? The cost would be a forced exit from the group; and the group is the lungs that make speech possible. A provocative and half-disagreeable remark amounts to a declaration of the intention to defect. To someone who has grown up in such a setting, the older protections of individual speech are an irrelevance.
more ...
ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)As you observe, it is too easy for an online thread to degenerate into an exchange of insults.
Over the centuries we have developed structured rules for debates in various settings.
We have developed common sense rules about considering the audience and the place -- some things you don't say in church, for example, or at a funeral.
I agree with you that it should be okay for someone to express any opinion, but not without consideration of the context: the situation, the setting, the audience.
Online forums need rules for the same reasons that parliamentary debates and other formal debates, news conferences, and other public speaking scenarios have rules. The alternative is chaos: Trump interrupting his opponent 51 times; someone in the audience shouting "Liar!" at the President; online threads degenerating into name-calling and insults.
imho anyway
Thanks for sharing the Bromwich link.
Midnight Writer
(21,795 posts)Never write anything you would not want children to see
Never write anything without considering how it may affect the reader
Never write anything that will put your future credibility in doubt
Stay on subject
struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)There may be reasons today to try to extend that struggle in particular directions
But " unregulated free speech" is a fiction: there have always been limits. If I approach random women on the street and scream at them that they're ugly whores, most people are not going to regard this as within my free speech rights: they'll regard it as disorderly conduct or itching for a fight. There are many other behaviors that will similarly invite some intervention. And if I say things people don't want to hear, they're usually entitled to tell me so
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Other people are equally free to call you on your bullshit. And if you run afoul of some code of conduct (hate speech comes to mind) at work or at a university (yes, even a public one), those consequences may be costly.
Websites such as this one and Facebook and Twitter, even, do have such codes of conduct, even if they rarely enforce them. People are nasty on the internet and free speech should not include doxxing (revealing someone's address or personal details without their consent) or harassment.
Civil discourse does matter and we are all within our rights not to engage with those who insist that free speech gives them the right be an asshole. Well, yes, you do, but I don't have to listen to it. So, I'm going to block those people wherever they are. Too bad there is no block button for real life.
tblue37
(65,488 posts)nothing but feces slinging when no control is exerted over the content (and, to some degree, the tone) of posts.