Free speech in the age of brute bigotry
Protests in Minneapolis, 26th May 2020
In light of George Floyd’s death and the ensuing protests in Minneapolis, Kinzah Khan reflects on the notion of free speech and where its limits lie.
The First Amendment of the United States stipulates that no law may be passed that may abridge or prohibit one's freedom of speech. Further, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that each citizen of a ratified state is guaranteed the freedom to hold opinions and express those opinions without interference. As such, “free speech” has become an integral part of what we refer to when we speak of “protecting our human rights.” It is often referred to in cases of controversial commentary, being used to defend opinions and the right to speak out about those opinions.
However, the use of free speech has been manipulated, used as a defence for hateful, fruitless opinions, grotesquely warping the concept, such that it is not used as a genuine defence for discussion or productive critique, but as a shield for bigots. The “free speech” argument has become a converter of sorts, allowing people to argue that their prejudiced views are simply controversial, or a difference of opinion. Whether Diversity or Susan Boyle should have won Britain’s Got Talent is a difference of opinion! The extraditing or judgement of people based on race, sex, class or creed is bigotry, and it cannot be tolerated in a civilised, functioning society.
Racists and bigots will often refer to the First Amendment to defend themselves, yet they pay no attention to the contradiction of these defences. For example, the UDHR is a document adopted by the United Nations and it certainly upholds the right to free speech. However, the central and overriding purpose of the UDHR, and other human rights declarations that also codify free speech, is to recognise and defend the dignity of all humans. These rights, as outlined by the Universal Declaration, apply to all people regardless of “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.
What's more, this declaration of inclusivity is the second article of the document. You don’t need to even look for it! So tell me this: how can one refer to human rights to defend their free speech, when prejudiced speech in itself is a contradiction of the very same document they are referring to? It’s hypocrisy; and if not hypocrisy, then ignorance. Further, if you are going to refer to human rights, or to an amendment, surely you are stating that you choose to follow those rules. But if you choose to follow those rules, you cannot just pick and choose. You have to accept them in their entirety. Very simply, if you want to be protected by human rights, you need to understand that you then have a duty to uphold dignity, not only of yourself but of those who function in your society.
I took an interesting module in my final year called “Free Speech and Theories of Autonomy.” As expected, there were different debates, where some defended the right to total free speech, while others took a more nuanced approach. I’d like to share some thoughts I had while writing my final essay: those who exercise their “free speech” regularly argue that they have the right to say what they feel; but I think these people forget that where there is a speaker, there is a listener. There is someone absorbing those words and if those words are of a hateful, prejudiced nature those words will affect them. It will warp, anger, confuse, and hurt them.
Now, these people may respond by saying it is not their duty to protect other people’s feelings, and perhaps that is true, but, equally, as a fellow member of the human species, you do not have the right to purposely shape and tailor your words in a way that will hurt, offend or make another feel inferior. The rules of free speech do not explicitly say this, but the purpose of such rules is protection. Just by common sense, how can one possibly think the right to free speech would approve of prejudice and hate filled words?
Maybe this doesn't work for you. Maybe you still don’t believe it is your duty to protect and think about others. Maybe you think you’re not the problem, and maybe people should stop being so sensitive? Ultimately, whether you choose to exalt prejudiced dialogue is entirely up to you, and certainly you can defend it with the free speech argument. However, I think it all boils down to this: whether you choose to express hateful language is inherently dependent on your capacity for empathy. Are you choosing to be racist, sexist, or prejudiced because it is benefiting you and you alone? Is someone else going to hear your words and have their autonomy imposed on? The value of empathy has been equally warped, as the notion of thinking before you speak has been patronised, re-written as “protecting Snowflakes,” when it is in fact an inherent, very simple idea of a well-functioning, inclusive society. In fact, forget the public effects: empathy is central to being able to develop and thrive in healthy relationships with the people in your private sphere. It is a character trait that has been devalued over the years, passed off as a weakness instead of a necessary part of our human status.
This article was triggered by a tweet I saw by Donald Trump (shock horror…). Twitter recently censored one of Trump’s tweets in reference to the Minneapolis protests in response to the recent death of George Floyd. Essentially, Trump accused Twitter of regulating free speech when Twitter deemed his tweet to glorify violence, thus breaching the network’s rules. Many people sided with him (thankfully, many people opposed him too). I think this is a clear manifestation of the thoughts I have conveyed, and it's exhausting to see time and time again that someone who holds such power is fuelling such a toxic dialogue regarding free speech.
Let me make this final distinction: it is not about silencing debates that revolve around race, gender, sexuality, and other topics of this nature, but about taking back the language we use so it may be shaped into a productive discussion, rather than one that ends in hatred and rioting. To me, that is what free speech is: debate and discussion and the right to express controversial opinions as long as they remain within the boundaries of controversy, and do not spill over into insult and offence. It's not always easy to do. I do agree that some scenarios have been blown out of proportion and contributed to the “Snowflake” discourse.
But we all have common sense and we all have the ability to think about others. It might be more effort, and you might not be able to say certain words any more, but that extra effort is not only appreciated, it is necessary. Thinking about someone else before yourself and adjusting your words to think before you speak — or before you tweet — is not a weakness. In fact, in this current climate, one may argue it requires strength as, tragically, to prioritise kindness and empathy seems to be taking a stance against the status quo.
Ignorance is a huge danger to our functioning societies and we have a duty to understand what free speech actually entails and use it in a way to further ourselves, rather than to alienate or infuriate.
***
On 25th May 2020, George Floyd was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis. This comes three months after the killing of Breonna Taylor, less than a month after the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, and was one of two incidents just this week against black Americans. It’s hard to know what to do at these times, apart from sharing videos and photos on social media, but here are a few practical things we can do from the UK:
Donate to the George Floyd Memorial Fund
Donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund
Read about and donate for Amaud Arbery
Read about and sign the petition for Breonna Taylor
Sign this petition and this one
Read this article to understand how to take direct action
While America is frequently in the headlines, this is not just an American issue. The UK is guilty of the same crimes against minorities, and it is important to not be ignorant about that. While being quarantined, I think a lot of us just want things to go back to “normal”. But maybe we need to take this time to think about what we want “normal” to be, and make incremental changes to strive towards a more productive, inclusive, and empathetic community.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.