Free Speech and Policing

Over in the comments for this YouTube video, someone calling herself JessicaSideways has decided to spar with me on the subject of free speech. The video is from the Alliance Defense Fund and is about Christian students being defamed and silenced for their faith and moral beliefs. For example, one young man gave a speech about his faith and was called a "fascist bastard" by the professor in front of the rest of the class. Then he was mocked and told to "ask God what his grade is".

Now—when my wife calls me a "fascist bastard" I know it's sort of a term of endearment. But I'm not sure that was in the case in this college classroom. What's ironic and worth pointing out in my mind is that although JessicaSideways brings up so-called "hate speech" in her argument against the type of speech used by the two Christian students, it's all at a hypothetical level. Whereas the real threatening and degrading remarks in the video are all aimed at the Christian students. For example, in her first remark to me in reply to my statement that students should have free speech, she said: "Would you say the same thing if they started talking on how they think the Aryan race is superior and started targeting Latinos, Blacks and Asians?" But nobody was talking like that. This seems the perfect demonstration of the straw-man fallacy with a side of red herring. Likewise she brings up the act of "throwing around the word 'nigger' in class" which she claims would rightly offend black students. I'll concede the point, although that word only offends most blacks when "thrown around" by non-blacks. But the real point is that there wasn't anything analogous said about gays. It's pretty safe to say the girl in the class didn't say "[Expletives for gays and lesbians] shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids." But where's the drama in that? She focuses on a hypothetical situation by which she insinuates bad behavior.

I left a challenge to Ms. Sideways regarding her assertion that "Christianity works to the detriment of society." I sarcastically pointed out that there was hostility in that remark, echoing her fears about "targeting" by using her words. But my main thought about freedom of speech is that the best cure for what you think is incorrect speech is more speech, not less. Correct someone if they are wrong especially about the facts, don't tell them to shut up or bully them into it by wrongly characterizing their words. What she is doing in the combox can be called "policing"; someone is told they should be quiet because their words are perceived to be dangerous. Likewise the young man's professor was exercising a policeman's role by silencing his speech rather than allowing the speech then countering it with different speech.

Reasonable debates and conversations always produce clarity because they serve to ultimately bring out the underlying philosophical foundations of the words comprising the speech. And if nothing else, an audience can tell who is losing ground by the crescendo of shrillness of the tone and the callow mockery offered in place of sound argument.

Update: Found Jessica Sideways's site. So... there you go.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage