Speak No Evil
(Originally published in my blog “Undertaken Seriously” on February 5, 2017)
The Constitution of the United States, namely its Bill of Rights, is the bedrock of legality in America. There is none so notorious yet so championed as that very first right: the guarantee of free speech. The first amendment allows for the debate and expression that fuels a democratic society— though not without limits. You can’t purposefully or publicly disparage another person; you’ll be sued for slander or libel. You also can’t expect legal immunity if you use “fighting words,” meaning, “words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken” according to the American Bar Association. Freedom of speech, sans these limitations, must be rigorously defended because it facilitates sharing of novel ideas: without this crucial process, our great democracy might not continue.
To the ever-controversial Milo Yiannopoulos and his followers, this notion is fantastic. Critics of Yiannopoulos target his message: they say he is inflammatory, disrespectful, and downright divisive. Yet he is, in many ways, successful; senior editor for Breitbart News, the fringe conservative source whose former chairman is now a White House Chief Strategist; recipient of a book deal with Simon & Schuster worth a reported $250,000. His most recent “Dangerous F*ggot” college tour raised more than money. He cultivated controversy as well as widespread discussion about freedom of speech that, in Yiannopoulos’ mind, perhaps means more free press and notoriety for himself. The campus tour inspired protests galore, culminating in the shooting of a protestor outside of the University of Washington—who is alive and well, thankfully—and a fiery riot outside the University of California, Berkeley. Where is the merit in sponsoring an individual whose very presence on a campus would inspire such a destructive reaction, even in the name of free speech?
The answer may be found in the very value we place on those first amendment protections. It is a truly empowering feeling to be free to fairly express oneself without fear of reprisal. Competing ideas coming together, warring through debate, and hopefully combining toward some synthesis is the rosiest view of how democracy ought to work. This war of ideas is everywhere; waged in our homes, universities, and our political institutions. Despite being so ubiquitous, the debate is not always so civil, nor is it respectful or constructive. Yet we must allow it to continue regardless. If we, as United States Americans, continue to revel in all of our constitutional freedoms, we must defend legal and free speech wherever it occurs.
Controversy surrounding the defense of Yiannopoulos should concern the implications of his message and the message itself, not the exercise of his right to send it. Although Yiannopoulos’ message is hurtful and insensitive to many, we cannot simply ignore it or disallow it. From a critic’s standpoint, we must listen and seek to understand: though it may be painful, we must engage with these ideas if we ever hope to conquer them, or perhaps make peace with them.
The “Hegelian Dialectic,” named for the German philosopher and logician who invented it, is a mode of thought designed to find some higher truth from the clash of two opposing ideas. The model of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” may sound familiar: in our case, Yiannopoulos’s rhetoric is the antithesis of existing ideas about inclusivity and respect for others. If we silence him for fear of being labeled bystanders to hate, or for the protection of sensitive audiences, we fail to acknowledge the antithesis fully. Without addressing this, despite how backward or hateful the message may seem, we cannot reach the synthesis of new and greater understanding.
The notion of consuming media from a diversity of sources follows the same logic. Should one only read “Breitbart News”, or only read “Mother Jones,” they are doing themselves and all others a disservice by narrowing their point of view, confirming their existing beliefs, and contributing to a suffocating partisan divide in American politics. What they should be doing is exactly the opposite; opening their minds, challenging and scrutinizing their beliefs, and working to increase political literacy on “both sides of the aisle.” Freedom of speech allows this to happen by sponsoring all sorts of competing perspectives.
As a patron of expression and criticism, free speech is found in the strongly-worded speech inside, and the protest outside; a tool wielded by the likes of the demagogue or the citizen. Unadulterated speech and expression, free of censorship, provides people with a very element of their identity. Free speech allows for us to find out how others feel, and what they care about; informing friendships, relationships, and the very way we live our lives. This freedom impacts our lives in almost unfathomable ways, and we are obligated, as America’s constituents, to protect it vehemently.
