Free Speech and Censorship
But first – yay for friends visiting and for visiting friends. My friend Christina visited Toronto from Texas this week, and now I’m in Ottawa, able to visit other friends. Thanks, Christina, for making it out to Toronto, and thanks, Ottawa people, for hanging out :)
Right. Free speech.
I’ve probably touched on this a couple time in previous posts, just because it’s something I’ve been thinking about since an in-class debate two years ago that involved a few friends of mine.
(WARNING – part of this entry discusses a scene from a play depicting explicit sexual violence, although I do no more than describe it briefly here)
The class (which I was not taking) had studied Tomson Highway’s Dry Lips Oughta Move to Kapuskasing. In the play, there is a scene in which a character is raped with a crucifix. During discussion of the work, a friend who is devoutly Catholic said that she found the scene highly offensive and that such a thing ought not to be shown onstage.
As you can imagine, in a class composed mainly of Drama students, she met with a lot of disagreement. No one, most of them argued, should be able to tell people what can and can’t be put onstage. To do so is censorship, and censorship is wrong. That’s why in Canada we have the right to free speech.
Since I wasn’t there, I don’t know what was actually said – there are a thousand different possible nuances to the arguments of each side, and, because I’m not interested in deciding who in that particular discussion was right, this is pretty much where I leave what was actually said behind and move into the much more interesting what could have been said.
Let me start off by saying straight out that I’m not talking about whether an artist who suffered systematized abuse through Canada’s racist policy of taking First Nations children from their families and placing them in Catholic schools is justified or unjustified in depicting a scene in which one of the most holy Catholic symbols is desecrated in a violent and disturbing way. I don’t know whether all Catholics or only those personally complicit should be called to account for the past and contemporary crimes of their faith . I don’t know to what extent a dominant culture can rightfully expect the peoples it colonized to respect its beliefs when it has historically failed to respect theirs.
All these are important things to consider in an argument like the one that took place. There are other, equally difficult questions to ask: how do we negotiate meaning? Is it possible to reconcile the views of two people who see the same object as representing radically different things? (For instance, Highway has suggested that the crucifix represents to him the Catholic patriarchy and its colonization of his culture; to my devout friend, it represents the sacrifice G-d has made to redeem humankind from sin.) Who gets the “final say” on what a thing symbolizes?
Again, important questions, deserving of considered answers. But the point is, these are all questions of morals and philosophy: not “should Tomson Highway be allowed to depict this scene when it offends some Catholics” but “is Tomson Highway right or morally justified in depicting this scene despite the fact that it offends some Catholics”?
I think it is this latter question that’s the crux of the matter, and I don’t think the answer is ever easy, since individuals’ views on the matter always differ depending on their own cultural experiences, their moral attitudes toward punishment, their understandings of justice, etc.
But what I think is the main problem in discussions like the one in my friends’ class is that questions of this sort – ethical ones – get confused with questions of right to free speech. It’s easy to see why this happens: when we say someone “shouldn’t” do something, we don’t distinguish whether what we’re doing is stating a moral imperative or suggesting that the moral imperative we believe in should be enforced by outside powers.
There’s a difference between exercising one’s right to free speech and giving a speech that is morally right. It is perfectly within my constitutional rights to call you stupid or belittle your achievements or insult your family, as long as I don’t cause any damages measurable monetarily. But those are still all wrong things to do. I’ve said this before, but having the right to free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences: it means you are responsible for everything you choose to say. No one should silence or suppress you if you decide to criticize our government – but it is not taking away your right to free speech if I argue against you, press you for evidence, or ask you to make your complaints in a more appropriate forum.
This is the same sort of argument you sometimes get when you challenge someone’s beliefs: “Well, I have a right to my opinion!” Yes, everyone has a right to draw his or her own conclusions and to express his or her own thoughts, but that doesn’t mean that everyone else has to consider those thoughts to be either factually or morally right.
You might argue that there’s an iceberg in the waters I’m navigating: history. Historically, some groups have had more power than others. Historically, some voices have always been louder. For instance, when a member of a more dominant group denies the legitimacy or validity of the opinion of a member of a less dominant group, it’s often problematic. This is because dominant groups have a long history of being able to shut down the arguments of groups it considers inferior: for instance, for a very long time (and sadly still today), men have been able to dismiss women’s perspectives and, in the Western world, white people have been able to choose to ignore the perspectives of those of other races.
Today, one might argue, there should be restrictions on what those who come from more privileged backgrounds can say, because otherwise, the opinions of those who lack privilege can still be ignored, dismissed, etc. In other words, if we want to be fair, it’s not good enough to give everyone equal rights – an equal chance to kick the ball – if the playing field is slanted toward one team’s goal. No matter how much, say, a straight person feels that homosexual sex acts are repulsive or wrong (and has a right to hold that opinion), he or she is morally obligated to avoid saying so because to do so is to perpetuate a harmful and negative characterization of homosexuality; and, what’s more, expressing such an opinion can never morally equivalent to a homosexual person saying heterosexual sex acts are repulsive or wrong, because, while both statements are hurtful, they can only be evaluated in the context of society. The person with the most power – the loudest voice – is the one whose acts have the biggest consequences. The louder you are, the more careful you have to be about what you say.
But, again, I think that responsibility is a moral one, not a legal one. No government in the world ought to make laws against you being racist, sexist, homophobic, a thoughtless jerk, a mean classmate, etc. But you still have a moral obligation not to be one. And I don’t think anyone is infringing on your rights when they tell you it’s wrong to speak against members of a historically subjugated group. And, even if someone suggests you should not have the right to do so, I don’t think “FREE SPEECH!!!!!!” is a valid counterargument. I believe every human being should have the right to free speech, but I also believe that every human being should have the right to feel comfortable walking down the street and the right to live his or her life without fear of systematized hate or discrimination. And I don’t think there is an obvious answer to which of these two fundamental rights should be suppressed when they come into conflict: valid arguments can be made for both sides.
That’s not to say that having the right to free speech or believing in the supremacy of free speech can’t be part of a good argument against the censorship of individuals. It definitely can. The trouble is, it has to be more than just “free speech is good, therefore I’m right and can say anything”.
Is it bad that I thought your description of a slanted goal was so clever I got distracted and didn’t carefully read the following two paragraphs?
I guess what I wonder about has a bit more of a psychological bent. I wonder what people are actually offended by certain things, or whether there’s a certain payoff for thinking/saying/convincing others that they are offended. You’re drawing attention to yourself and (sometimes) getting people to tailor their behaviour to accommodate you. You’re probably getting them to more carefully consider your feelings in other situations.
It strikes me as very strange that people can be okay with being informed that, say, a TV show contains mature language and depictions of violence, and be happy with this because they can avoid it. Presumably people can say swear words and picture violent things in their own heads (and just by saying mature language and depictions of violence, you’re prompting that thinking), yet they are only offended if it comes from them from outside themselves.
If I was devoutly religious, found anti Catholic things offensive, then sat by myself in my own living room and said “Jesus was stupid and smelled like nail polish remover”, I don’t think I’d be offended. And I suspect other people wouldn’t either. Sure, they might feel bad for saying things, but offended? Don’t know so much.
So I wonder whether anything out there is inherently offensive. And I guess I’m at the point where I just try to go by people’s intentions by what they say (are they purposefully trying to be an ass to me?), and try to give a bit of leeway. That’s why I get annoyed when people complain about being told “Merry Christmas” – because I think the vast majority of people who say it are extending warm wishes to someone. When someone says “Happy holidays” all I can think of is that this is the PC term so that nobody gets offended (same with holiday tree). The warm wishes are playing second fiddle, which pretty much defeats the point of saying it at all. Maybe there’s a better answer out there, but I can’t think of it at the moment.
Lol, glad you liked the slanted goal metaphor/analogy (The only three literary terms I will always remember are topic, theme, and thesis… sadly, you know why) Thanks :)
Hmmm… IMO, it depends on what you mean by “gets offended”. In some cases and for some goals, it certainly is an effective social strategy, but there are others in which it doesn’t work at all. (eg. There’s still tons of sexist and racist stuff on TV…)
I don’t think anything is inherently offensive, but mostly because I don’t think anything is inherently anything. Re: your example of the person sitting by him/herself, saying something he/she would find offensive in other circumstances, that example gets its “punch” from the implicit assumption that the meaning of a phrase – what’s offensive about it – rests in the words alone, and I don’t think that’s the case. I think meaning comes from context, too, and that’s why it’s legitimate to, say, be offended by an anti-atheist joke when it’s told by a devout Christian but not when it’s told by Richard Dawkins.
When *you* make comments to yourself about Jesus smelling like nail polish remover (lol), you are aware of your own cultural identity as a Catholic, your knowledge and experience with Catholic culture, and (maybe most importantly in this case) your status as an *insider* in the Catholic community. But when a random non-Catholic bypasser says the same thing, he or she is implicitly excluding Catholic people from “normal” people – setting that group up as “them” rather than “us”. And what if the Catholic community has a history with certain other communities that lend meanings to certain phrases above and beyond their literal meaning? (IE, I doubt you’d be offended if you sat alone in a room and said, “Catholics suck!” but suppose Bill, a Protestant, were to say the same thing to you? When Bill says the same words, thanks to the hostile history between Protestants and Catholics, they mean something very different. Or what if Bill was a prominent rabbi? Because of his social standing and power, the words would mean something different again… etc.)
I totally owe this example to my suitemate, who came up with it when we were discussing something related, but it’s like how you might laugh if you called yourself fat but get mad at a stranger if they called you fat, because it means something different when it’s coming from someone you don’t know. Nothing inherently offensive in the idea of you being fat, but offensive in the situation in which it’s used.
… I will stop now before I regurgitate the entirety of my musings over the last couple terms.
(Oh, Diana, you fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never bring up a topic on which a grad student has written a paper when you want the conversation to end sometime before the next millennium! Ahahahahaha!!!!!)
I personally also agree with giving people leeway, but I dunno…. eg., re: the MErry Christmas example: most people who wish me “Merry Christmas” have great *intentions*… the same way that most people who might press evangelical Christian documents on us during our lunch hours are motivated by their genuine, friendly wish to see us spiritually fulfilled; that those who call me”sir” really are trying to show respect; or those who call you “Diane” are most often motivated by the warm, friendly wish to make you feel included by using what they believe to be your given name. The point is, those people are *mistaken* about us and what we want – and to persist in doing things because they think we *should* want them is disrespectful and arrogant.
I guess I think: nice intentions are better than hurtful intentions, but they don’t stop people from doing hurtful things, which everyone has a moral obligation to point out and stop. Just as I must understand that Store Clerk Jane don’t mean to offend when she says “Merry Christmas” and not make judgments about her moral character from that one action, Store Clerk Jane must understand that my being offended doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate her nice intentions. The difficulty is in pointing out the hurtful thing in an effective way – one that shows I appreciate and understand the nice intentions. And I guess sometimes there’s no way to do that, and then you have a moral dilemma.
Maybe it’s like getting a present you really don’t like (a swastika pencil-holder made from dead babies! Yay!) from someone you really do. Your own feelings are slightly hurt that they’d make such a wrong assumption about you. And, when they ask you, “How’d you like the gift?”, you have the choice of lying to save their feelings and possibly wind up with more misguided gifts that you’ll have to lie about or of telling them the truth and hurting their feelings in the short term but building a more honest relationship in the long run. And there will always be people who don’t want to hear anything but praise about their gift, and there’s no right answer with them.
And I think the dilemma of do-I-say-I-don’t-like-the-gift is especially difficult to judge when you aren’t the offended party – *I’m* not offended by you being called “Diane”, but your feelings about the subject are real. Should I call out the person who calls you that even though I privately think they’ve done nothing morally wrong? Or is there no such thing as *the* right thing? Maybe there are many right things, and you can only do the one that seems best to you. I think that’s where my personal moral philosophy is headed right now…
…
However, “holiday tree” is a complete piece of garbage. The only holiday associated with those trees is Christmas! There is no Hannukah bush or Kwanzaa shrub! It is a CHRISTMAS tree. Aaaaarg!!!
PS I’m at my parents’ house right now… Dad just came in and wanted to know what I was doing (“I’m talking to Diana on my blog.”). He says “Hi”.
Jeez, I should have just made that my next week’s blog post… lol
But I’m not offended when people call me Diane…I’m annoyed. I’m only offended when people continue to call me Diane after repeated corrections, because they haven’t shown enough sympathy to respect what I’m comfortable with.
And I guess that’s what offensiveness is to me – disregard for me/my feelings/my views KNOWINGLY.
I guess where I disagree with your view of offensiveness is that it puts this ridiculous onus on a person where they have to try to be psychic and guess what a person might or might not be offended by all the time. And even if you were to buy the latest politically correct dictionary every two weeks, you’d still be making blunders. So I think the better solution is to simply tell a person when something bothers you. If they continue to do what you’ve said bothered you, then you can go be offended.
Hence the Merry Christmas thing. When I walk up to someone in Canada and wish them Merry Christmas (who probably does celebrate Christmas), I don’t think it can be taken as an offensive thing. If that person then says “I’m Jewish, I’m Muslim, I don’t celebrate Christmas” and I again repeat “Merry Christmas” that’s when I think somebody can be offended. When we, as you say “persist” in doing things that another person doesn’t want.
I think the same thing can be said of your “Catholics suck!” example. Bill might be making a funny joke. Bill might be a jerk. Bill might not pick up easily on social cues. I don’t know, and there are times when my guess is going to be wrong. The best thing is probably just to tell Bill straight out that saying “Catholics suck!” bothers me.
I think I’m a fairly blunt person and tend to speak up (at least the first two times someone calls me Diane) when something really bothers me. And I think if you don’t speak up about what you want, no matter how socially awkard, you don’t have the right to be offended. Annoyed, disappointed, weirded out, sure. But offended?
Oh no, I agree that to expect someone to *always* “psychically” know what’s going to offend someone is ridiculous (and also that telling Bill, “Hey, that’s not cool”, is the best strategy). I just maintain that doing something wrong without knowing it or intending to do it is still wrong, and it should still be the goal of a moral person to do his or her best not to do wrong. IE, I don’t think being offended is saying “You should have known better and done differently!”, it’s saying, “Whether you meant to or not, you did something hurtful, so please don’t do it again!”
And there’s that difficult line to draw – in our supposedly anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic society, many think that people *should* know that prejudiced myths of the past are wrong. On one hand, I don’t want to blame someone for his/her background… but, on the other, I don’t think the “onus” should be on ME to educate, say, a sexist person who thinks all women really, secretly want to be pregnant and in the kitchen, or on a homosexual man to educate a heterosexual person who believes all gay men are child molesters. Those seem to be the sorts of things we expect people to learn on their own.
I guess the difficulty is, when is it reasonable to expect someone to know something? I think it’s reasonable to expect people in our country at this time to know that not everyone is Christian… or white… or male… or heterosexual… or middle-class, etc. The ethically troublesome part is that part of the injustices perpetuated throughout the history of Western society has been the attitude that ignorance about minority groups is OK – that medical studies on white men are all we need or that no one cares what women want politically – that you don’t need to know about “them” because they’re not “us” and they don’t matter. It depends on whether you see our current society as normal or as the groundwork for something else that “could be”.
IMO, ethics as a whole are too caught up on blame and on classifying people as “better” or “worse” than each other than on actual actions and their consequences. Why can’t we say someone did something wrong without having to demonstrate that they could have done otherwise? Like, even if Hitler was possessed by evil demons from Mars and had absolutely no choice about any of his actions in life, that doesn’t mean that the Holocaust wasn’t WRONG, it just means that we have to reconsider whether it would be just to punish *him* for it. (OK, I guess that presupposes a couple of my beliefs about ethics – possibly including the non-existence of an omniscient, universal Judge – but that’s a whole ‘nother blog entry.)
Also… reading over your response, I think we may mean different things by “offended”… when something offends me, what I mean is that I think that that person has said is morally wrong because it perpetuates existing injustices.
PS Did you see the Cracked main article today? After we talked about the first one on our hike? Coincidence? I think not!
PPS I don’t know why my parents keep stopping in while I’m typing to you, but I explained to Mom what we’re talking about, and she says, “Oh yeah? Tell Diana I find that subject offensive!”
PPPS If I spent half the time on grad school stuff that I do writing comments on this blog, I think I’d have my PhD already, lol…