The Delicate Balance
The ongoing discussion between Jan, Rayne, The Raven, Kriselda and I on the subject of cross-burning has forced us all to closely examine our views on racism and censorship. However, by emphasizing the differences between what are all fundamentally similar outlooks, it has also created a false dichotomy between the values of social justice and free expression, when in fact I think we all agree that civil society functions best with both of these present to the largest possible extent. These ideals occasionally conflict, and it is important to have principles that guide us in the resolution of such disputes. But principles must be tempered by understanding and experience. Otherwise, a sincere and absolute faith in either social justice or free expression to the exclusion of the other can blind us to the very real dangers facing open societies from enemies that don’t care much about either one.
Just as my good pal The Raven rises only very reluctantly in defense of the Klan as a necessary corollary to his categorical support for free expression, so too am I quite uncomfortable advocating anything that remotely smacks of censorship. I have, in this space, defended all manner of offensive speech and generated quite a bit myself. Democracy requires that we all grow thick skins about the utterances of others, even as the insipid doctrine of “political correctness” urges us all to identify ways we are “victimized” by insensitive language. To that extent, PC has done a huge disservice to civil society by bringing free expression and social justice into unnecessary conflict, and trivializing those few real instances where certain kinds of expression, unchecked, can lead to horrifying consequences for society.
The “slippery slope” argument used by extreme libertarians to argue, essentially, that any restrictions on free speech whatsoever will inevitably lead to all manner of restrictions, implies a (well-justified) fear of a society where the state controls the thoughts and beliefs of its subjects. For sure, nobody wants that. But public complicity in the face of encroaching censorship is not the only way totalitarian government comes to power. In fact, historically, the most common way that fascism has taken root is through the spread of racist doctrines and public spectacles (such as cross-burnings or torchlight parades) designed to empower supporters and intimidate opponents. Often, these rituals actuate instances of violence, either by inciting the faithful into an emotional frenzy or provoking a response by outraged opponents. In either case, the resulting conflict polarizes the environment and unleashes the kind of hostility that always works to the fascists’ advantage. Should social cohesion erode to the point that the fascists can take power over the state, their ideology provides no constraints on the ruthless use of force to suppress all dissenting views and enforce their vision of order on everyone.
In the last 150 years, we’ve seen the post-Civil War American South, Weimar Germany, Rwanda, Serbia and the West Bank all tumble down this slippery slope into oppression, one-party rule and, in the worst cases, genocide. In almost every case, the fascists were a minority who used racial ideology to form and maintain cohesion among their fanatic followers and foment conflict that enabled them to gain momentum for their movement. Regarded as a tiny rabble of fools and bumpkins by sophisticated opinion, they exploited the inability and unwillingness of an open society to stop the spread of their ideas and thus built a critical mass of support that enabled them to gain power, when it was clear in retrospect that a concerted show of force at an early moment would have broken their drive to supremacy.
The clear lesson of history is that, in these cases, it is not enough for the State to remain neutral while partisans of both sides battle in the “marketplace of ideas.” Racism appeals to the ugliest nature of all people, and its categorically-irrational siren call has proven to be seductive in times where more reasonable policies have failed. Experience unfortunately shows that good government, education, rational counter-arguments and prosperity offer no sure remedies for what must be considered a fundamental human instinct. The State can’t (and shouldn’t) try to control what’s in people’s hearts and minds, and it can’t prevent citizens from hating and fearing each other, but it can put the force of law behind the idea that it is unacceptable for racism and incipient fascism to gain a foothold by public demonstrations that are intended to create an atmosphere conducive to racial violence.
As a practical matter, this requires society to perform the uncomfortable task of making qualitative judgments about types of expression, so as to remain vigilant against the very real threat that racist ideology poses to everyone’s freedom. From a civil liberties perspective, it is much easier to take the absolutist position and pretend that all modes of expression are equally valid, so that we do not succumb to the temptation to censor views that are merely offensive rather than harmful, and thereby foreclose on legitimate public debate. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Sometimes we must look at a particular case and recognize that the danger posed in that instance is greater than the danger of being inconsistent to an absolute principle.
Racist speech doesn’t just give offense. It can and has been used to undermine the very basis of civil society and give rise to barbaric political systems in which censorship is only one of many evils. There is always the danger that once we begin to exercise judgment over the content of some speech, we won’t know where to stop. So yes, we need to be careful. It’s a gray area, full of messy compromises and demanding of constant vigilance, sometimes requiring people of good faith and intelligence to argue contrary to their own principles when it is justified by experience and evidence. But it can be done and it must be done. If we really believe in maintaining a civil society that is both just and open, we must be prepared to defend it, even if that means sometimes compromising on absolute freedom.
9:46:50 AM 
|
|
