I have to say, it’s never really been about ‘free speech’ to me. Rather, the issue is that I’m afraid that the diversity of opinion, and hence, the necessary breeding ground for open debate, gets eroded. The article claims that the view of those opposing what they see as opinion-policing do so out of some form of conservativism:
Social justice advocates think the bands of acceptable opinion and arguments shouldn’t be narrowed, precisely, but rather pushed to the left — shifted to include formerly excluded voices from oppressed communities and to sideline voices that seek to continue their exclusion. Their critics think the traditional bands of debate are, broadly speaking, correct, and that we’d all be worse off if the social justice advocates succeed in moving speech norms in their direction.
That isn’t my view, however. I don’t think that the ‘bands of acceptable opinion’ are just fine and dandy the way they are, but rather, that they ought to be shifted further to the left; but I don’t think that what’s happening right now is an effective means at achieving this outcome—worse, I fear it may threaten it, emboldening a conservative/alt-right segment that can now shelter behind the fig leaf of legitimate grievance.
Over in this thread, somebody linked to an NY Times article on how those that feel themselves ‘canceled’ (whether legitimately or not) have started to (even if loosely) organize and mutually reinforce each other.
To me, the problem also isn’t that the discourse, using the simplistic ‘spectrum’ model from the Vox article, becomes more narrow, but rather, that it becomes fractionalized—splitting up into distinct bands, with those within one band continually striving to enforce localized standards of acceptable opinion (which ties back to the OP of this thread, and the identity model outlined). It’s a sort of ‘active’ counterpart of the filter bubble phenomenon: rather than merely censoring the information that is presented to me, the spectrum of opinion from which legitimate viewpoints can be drawn is constantly redefined.
Nobody’s really being denied their free speech in this scenario. I’m (for example) merely exercising my own right to free speech to advocate against those whose opinions I don’t wish to tolerate being given a platform—which I am (and should be!) perfectly free to do; then, those who have authority over the given platform may decide to agree with me, or not—again, something they’re free to do.
But just because me and everyone else is just exercising their freedoms in this scenario, doesn’t mean that doing so is also necessarily a good idea. In the other thread, I tried to illustrate it like this:
(‘Predominant rules’ in the above should’ve been ‘predominant opinion’.)
So ‘free speech’, while it’s a convenient motto to latch on to, is a bit of a red herring in this debate for me. It’s not the freedom of speech I feel is being threatened, but the grounds for forming a well-founded opinion—in the extreme, if you either get with the program of your own social circle, or risk being ousted, you can’t legitimately be said to have any opinion at all; you’re at best parroting phrases.
So to me, there needs to be a tolerance of error, of mistake, and of legitimate disagreement, without thereby being branded an enemy, or not an ally, of social progress. One thing I’ve noticed, also in the recent discussions on here, is a complete disregard of the principle of charity—rather than trying to give another’s opinion the best possible interpretation, it’s often the most malicious interpretation that’s taken for granted (‘Oh, so you think we should give a fair hearing to Hitler?’).
The problem with this isn’t that it’s an unkind thing to do (well, not just), but that it weakens one’s own point: if we don’t react to the strongest possible argument another could’ve intended, we risk that our counterargument is insufficient, or attacks the wrong target altogether, which creates a gap that can be exploited by an opponent. We’re not doing ourselves any favors in painting another’s argument in the worst possible light—of bigotry, oppressiveness, or hatred, for instance. We should—for our sake, and that of our views—allow for disagreement, for plurality of opinion, for differing views that nonetheless may come from intentions as good as ours, and even for honest mistake or a failure to fully appreciate the scope of a debate. Somebody not educated in the latest vernacular—and I think one must admit that the sheer pace these things develop makes it hard to keep up—may make a honest gaffe that can be easily construed as offensive; that doesn’t immediately make them the enemy. We can strive to educate, rather than ostracize, and only if that proves fruitless, move on. But that requires allowing the other to have as good (and ‘pure’) a reason for their views than we do, and I think that’s not always a given assumption in current debate.