We all believe in free speech, but only up to a point, that depends on where one is. Yes, all of us, yourself included.
Yes, really. Suppose that somebody says "I want to speak about what a poor excuse for a man you are and my sexual fantasies involving your mother". Shaking your head, you may start to say "it's a free country ...", but suppose that he follows by saying "And I'd like to give this speech at the foot of your bed, while you're going to sleep". OK, show of hands - how many people think that the first amendment entitles him to break into your house to do so?
The concept is absurd, yes? Because your bedroom is private space and your right to decide who will be allowed to enter is not subject to constitutional restrictions. We recognise that the freedoms of public discourse do not extend into so private a space, when it belongs to someone else. This makes sense, on two different levels. First of all, that of answering needs. We need our privacy. We need a place where we can feel at ease, and gather our thoughts. Secondly, because the recognition of this right, does not, in general, put an undue hardship on those seeking to publicly argue a point. The bedroom is but a small patch of excluded space, surrounded by vast amounts of open, publicly available space. Thus, it is sensible for us to respect the privacy of the home.
A key point, in this very simple case, is the observation that to give an absolute right to speak wherever one wished, would undermine freedom of speech, not enhance it. It would enable those who objected to what a person was saying, to simply harass him at home until he gave in. Pretty clear, right?
Now, let us consider the contrary case, of a man speaking in the great outdoors. Here, the logic reverses. To restrict speech in this vast sea of public space, surrounding the islands of private space, would be to make it difficult to impossible for those who might be interested in what the one censored has to say, from being able to hear him, or think about what he has to say. And, certainly, open space can't ever offer the same sense of security, or privacy, as the interior of a home. Thus, in this public space, we act to insure a broad freedom of expression. Thus, the desirability of the first amendment to the US constitution.
Wondering when I'm going to get to a point, right ?
Here it is. Sometimes the space is, in some sense, not wholly public or private, but partakes of some of the character of each, and thus the best balance between public and private freedoms lies somewhere in between. What obscures this, perhaps, is the hastily reacted to image of the individual arising in the morning, then plunging into the public, to conduct his affairs. But this is not how people associate with each other, or carry on discourse, at all. En route to entering the melee of fully public exchanges, they enter the company of their friends, partners and allies, to seek advice, formulate ideas and arguments for them, find support, make plans ... So, there is a step that lies between one's cozy enjoyment of the fully private, and immersion in the fully public, made necessary by the reality that we work and function in a civilised society in groups, not as isolated individuals.
Much as a single individual needs his quiet time to gather its thoughts, so a group will need some peaceful time of its own, to build it consensus, and determine where it support will go. A lone individual, without the support of such a group, may find it a lot harder to be exposed to certain ideas and information that his will build on, or to effectively act on those ideas, or make them heard. Thus, the conflict between civility and freedom that will seem to come out of the next article, is an illusion. A disrupted forum of discussion, is not a liberating or productive one, that will help us find the new ideas we seek, or accomplish the things of interest to us.
It is, as we say, intermediate. Both the feeling of, and need for, a sense of security and calm, and the loss of freedom, when rude comments get one ejected, lie between what we find in our fully private moments, and our fully public encounters. What we seek, is not the unattainable goal of perfect freedom of expression, but merely the greatest freedom that is available to us, and sustainable.
This brings us to a second point. Some would ask, if the politically correct are not just as entitled to free access to any given floor of discussion, as anyone else? By excluding them from a forum, where they might be heard, aren't we practicing a form of censorship and intolerance itself? The answer is "no". Having opted out of honoring their obligations under the social contract, in regard to respecting the right of free expression, they can not claim an equal right to protection under it, and have a reasonable right to expect to be taken seriously.
To exclude the censorious and their disciples from a forum is not censorship, any more than hitting back is a form of aggression. In each case, balance is restored to an unbalanced situation. One can't reasonably consent to an arraingment, where they are able to take political ground through illegitimate means, but are then able to unilaterally declare a truce whenever it suits them at the moment, without having to face any penalty for their earlier actions. To accept this, is to allow them to bias the process of discussion, in their own favor, and thus lead it in its course, away from movement toward the truth. It would not merely be weak to acquiesce to a demand to do so, but unethical as well.
Consider the absurdity of it. If the membership of one of these movements gains the upper hand in one forum, they may feel free to create a hostile environment for dissent. But if another, more tolerant school of thought holds sway, they may try to gain ground in it, on an indefinite basis. That which is theirs, is theirs to keep, but that which is the rest of ours, is negotiable?
Why should we agree to such a double standard, that guarantees that in time, all forums will end up in the hands of the most fanatical among us, independently of the strengths or weaknesses of their arguments? (Witness the progress of the 1990s.) Yes, freedom of expression is a thing to be valued, but there also has to be such a thing as common sense. Here, we would be embracing it in the short term, at its greater expense in the long run. This is not philosophical consistency, this is folly.
This is the sort of situation that beautifully illustrates the old observation that "consistency is the bugaboo of small minds" (Emerson). Here, some will protest that it is hypocritical to preach tolerance - the treasuring of freedom for all - and then seek to deny it to others. But what this criticism implicitly overlooks, is that our priorities can legitimately lead to conflicts, and sometimes we have to balance them off against each other. Here, the unavoidable tradeoff, is between a small loss for one of our priorities now, or a far greater and more potentially dangerous loss later on. Futher, the latter choice rewards the very practice our value opposes, and serves to reinforce the tendency to indulge in it.
One might try to argue that no, in the second case, we simply let things happen, instead of making them happen, but what is the difference? One takes a course of action, knowing that certain results may be expected, either way. It is, in fact, an arbitrary linguistic distinction. The latter is passive, while the former is active? Really? And, in pursuing the latter, am I not calling our friend, who asks for tolerance but won't reciprocate it? Am I not telling him where the meeting is? Am I not opening the door, to let him in? ... actions, one and all, with more to follow. The second case is only passive, because somebody said so, not because the passivity has any moral significance.
Besides which, there is no such thing as a right to be invited. Certainly, it's wrong to condition the granting of a wish, on something that is none of the granter's business - that can have a coercive effect, as people wonder what they will be excluded from, if they don't exercise their "free" choices in a particular way. In fact, the threat of ostracism is one of the most popular tools of both the PC and Neoconservative movements, for enforcing obedience. However, the promotion of a movement which seeks to undermine our freedom, is everyone's business. Such a movement, in doing so, breaches the social contract that allows it to ask for tolerance in the first place. This has been done without any justification being offered, other than the assertion that those doing so, believe in the truth of the ideas that they are trying to force on others.
We invite others because, in being true to ourselves, we find their company enjoyable, and their input stimulating. A member of one of the movements cited, satisfying neither criterion, fails to earn his right to stay. It's a moot point, anyway, though, because he is unlikely to have been invited to come in the first place.
Note : this, perhaps, is a good time to remind the reader that the limitations on the freedom of the host for a group, that we proposed, would be imposed from within, as a matter of private conscience, not from without. The only tools to enact these changes, would be discussion, individual thought, and private initiative.
Shall we discuss why a code is needed and its absence oppressive, or shall we skip to the discussion of the code?