Thoughts at noon on free speech

After recently reading a number of classical dialogues it seems to me we need to develop a more sensitive approach to hate speech, or even controversial opinions. Practically speaking this means not banning hate speech altogether but rather moderating the venue through which it is heard. Some moderation is needed because hate speech can incite violence, but it seems to me this effect depends not so much on the content of the speech, but on the context in which it is heard. For example (an extreme one), I have no doubt that a dark-skinned person who happens to wander into a neo-Nazi rally being held in the backwoods of some place should fear for his or her well-being if not life. Yet the same racist ideology presented in the form of a dialogue, with the opportunity for opposing views to be heard, rather than inciting violence, would no doubt come off looking quite absurd. By handling hate speech in a way that shuts down dialogue and makes such speech illegal even, I'm afraid we force the ideas that inform it underground.

In some ways this may seem naïve. Do I really have so much faith in the power of reasoned dialogue, or in the public use of reason? Does a broader exposure of the public to hate speech not disseminate the very ideas we'd like to disempower? Does the kind of dialogue I'm speaking of not exclude those who have not inherited or practice a kind of academic skepticism, that is a particular kind of European intellectual dialogue?

First of all, yes I do have faith in the power of reasoned dialogue and people's ability to decide which views resonate with goodness, happiness, and justice. We won't always agree on the particulars, but that's why it's important to have these conversations, if only to make one another aware that we are operating under different definitions of goodness, etc. I once heard this kind of discussion referred to as "agonistic" (as opposed to antagonistic), the idea being that sometimes entering into dialogue with others is a painful experience, but one that despite the pain can potentially lead to shared perspectives, a greater appreciation for the other, and further development of our ideas.

Secondly, allowing hate speech (or even controversial ideas) on the public stage certainly exposes more people to the reasoning and thought processes of those who espouse it. I'm not sure we should assume this exposure automatically leads to more disciples however. It seems to me it is precisely these underground expressions of hate speech that create the most followers, while public expressions in the form of a dialogue might help expose potential candidates for discipleship to opposing views and/or destabilize those who already hold such views. A dialogue isn't a monologue. Important thing to keep in mind.

Thirdly, there may be some merit in critiquing this model of dialogue. One can imagine a situation in which a highly polished hate speech orator, skilled in rhetoric and debate, shares the stage with a poor farmer from the outskirts of Conakry. The very form the dialogue takes in a way sets the farmer up, if not for failure, than perhaps embarrassment (which may be the same under Western terms of debate). And yet, dialogue has been used to settle disputes, share ideas, and come to general agreement over matters, for thousands of years. A more inclusive model of dialogue is required. This calls for experimentation and patience. In Canada (and no doubt other places) Indigenous People's models are already being actualized in the service of communal healing and cross-cultural sharing. The success of these models on a larger stage will be proved by their use, i.e. -actually engaging- in alternative forms of dialogue.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall once summed up Voltaire regarding free speech: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." What if we qualify this by adding that the "right to say it" extends especially into the public realm of dialogue where what is said might have the greatest impact on the well-being of those it is said about, and where the opportunity to hear other voices is made that much more vital to the enterprise of living in a community where ideas can, and do, shape the world.

Virgil translation

Ibant obscure sola sub nocte per umbras, Perque domos Ditis vacuas et inania regna. -Virgil

On they faintly went beneath the lonely night, amid shadows, through Death's empty dwelling and hollow realm.