In a Pit thread about a Conservative talk show host who made a rather offensive remark, someone posted that a member of Congress circulated a petition to call for the programme’s cancellation. The executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights also demanded that the show be canceled.
The First Amendment guarantees our right of free expression. Specifically, ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…’ So that’s not the issue. Citizens and groups have no such restriction. They may petition broadcasters to cancel shows they find offensive or simply do not like, to fire individuals, etc. These people and groups are exercising their Freedom of Speech to denounce those they find offensive.
I wonder if they should though. I hate hearing people who have a public forum espousing hateful ideas. I’d rather not hear them. I think they can be dangerous to society if large numbes of people adopt these ideas.
But there’s an old saying: ‘Give him enough rope and he’ll hang himself.’ I just watched 12 Angey Men again recently. One character goes off on an racist rant, prompting even those members of the jury who agree with him that the defendant is guilty to stand from the table and turn their backs on him. I think of the Ku Klux Klan. While unfortunately there are still people who believe their tripe, I think most people see them as a bunch of nutters. The more they talk, the more ridicule they open themselves up to.
So I wonder: Is it better to ‘shut down’ those people who’s views are dangerous to society? Or to let them make such fools of themselves that even their most ardent supporters have to stop and say, ‘Hey, wait a minute…’? Again, I’m not talking about violating the First Amendment. I’m talking about non-judicial censorship by our fellow citizens expressing their own views.
I personally hate those attempts to shut people up, like when pressure groups scare off advertisers of a show they dislike. That crap is of course legal, but it’s completely counter to the idea of free speech. It would be like trying to win an argument in Great Debates against someone by getting their internet access shut off.
And yes, I even hate it when they are targeting someone I personally dislike and disagree with. In fact, I bet more times than not I disagree with the target. But I disagree with “I don’t like it so nobody should see/hear it” even more (usually).
From The American President: *Everybody
knows American isn’t easy. America is
advanced citizenship.
You gotta want it bad, 'cause it’s
gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna
say, “You want free speech? Let’s
see you acknowledge a man whose words
make your blood boil, who’s standing
center stage and advocating, at the
top of his lungs, that which you
would spend a lifetime opposing at the
top of yours. You want to claim
this land as the land of the free,
then the symbol of your country can’t
just be a flag; the symbol also has
to be one of its citizens exercising
his right to burn that flag in
protest.” Show me that, defend that,
celebrate that in your classrooms.
Then you can stand up and sing about
the land of the free. *
I agree in principle. But I find it impossible to believe that I’m not superior to members of hate groups, bigots, etc. whether or not they are silenced.
Which is not to say that I think they should be silenced. I do wish they’d shut up and analyse their beliefs and have epiphanies that reveal to them that they’re wrong. But I’m not so sure they should be shut down. First, shutting them down will only give them ‘proof’ that they’re being ‘repressed’ by their enemies. Secondly, as the exchange of information becomes faster and more widespread, they may be hoist by their own petards. But there’s still the danger that their views may be adopted by others.
I’m saying doesn’t the long enough rope include the risk, for the speaker, that there will be repercussions for their statements? And isn’t losing a show, or a movie deal, or sales, just one of those risks?
The antidote for hateful (or stupid) speech is a well-reasoned rebuttal of your own. People who resort to “Shut up!” do so because they don’t have a better response.
Freedom of speech is useless if it’s limited to speech that you find tasteful.
This is the key, though (whether good or bad). If it looks like the guy and his views are going to cost the company money, they’ll dump him and he’ll have to take his crap elsewhere.
It’s annoying only when “they” do it – boycott Disney, for example. It’s politically astute when it’s for a good cause such as saving the whales, keeping a fake “news” documentary off the air waves, helping farm workers, etc.
Seriously, I approve of this method because it too is an expression of freedom in the marketplace. Smaller voices can be heard when they organize.
Well, I did explicitly say “And yes, I even hate it when they are targeting someone I personally dislike and disagree with”, you just chopped that part when you quoted me.
For me, it’s not an especially offensive tactic, although it’s certainly a tactic that can be used in a good or a bad fashion. If I’m trying to get Fox not to air a special on how the Moon Landing is a Hoax, that’s using the tactic for a good end. If I’m using it to try to cancel shows that reference masturbation, that’s using the tactic for a bad end. The tactic itself doesn’t hold much moral value: it’s simply a version of the boycott, which is morally neutral.
