One of the most intelligent things one can do is advocate for absolute freedom of speech. That is a strong statement, so let me explain.
The General Social Survey (GSS) in the US includes a brief but decent IQ test. IQ is at the very least a greater ability to find the correct answers wherever objectively correct answers exist.
A number of questions on the GSS deal with freedom of speech. There are questions on whether homosexuals, pro-war advocates, racists, atheists, militant imams preaching hatred of the West and communists should be allowed to speak.
On each of these questions those with higher IQs are much more likely to answer Yes than those with lower IQs. We see this pattern everywhere, even where we would not expect to see it. For example, on the racism question you see the same pattern among blacks and liberals as you see among whites and conservatives. Among convinced Christians we see greater support for allowing gays, atheists and radical Muslims to speak than we see among their less intelligent brethren, just as we see in other groups.
Saying Yes on all six questions turns out to be more strongly related to IQ, and says more about how smart you are, than solving a maths problem or knowing the correct meaning of a word. Within such a diversity of interest groups, free speech absolutism reliably and accurately indicates the ability to find correct answers, therefore the chances are very good that it is the wisest choice. OK, but why is free speech absolutism right?
Firstly, allowing every opinion maximises their number and diversity, and therefore the chance of finding the truth. That is especially true of the things we disagree about. If we only allow uncontroversial opinions the search for truth will end. Only unpopular opinions really face opposition, so to be useful free speech protections need to lean toward the radical side − that is, be absolute and protect the expression of the most offensive views.
Secondly, John Stuart Mill pointed out that those who want to suppress certain ideas could be wrong, and history amply proves his point. I would add that they could also be malicious, and banning opinion often protects those who hold everyone back.
Authoritarian route
Thirdly, banning expression is a bad way to combat misinformation or silly conspiracy theories. Misinformation became an issue during the Covid pandemic, but the medical and other authorities were not very forthcoming about what was happening and even lied about some things, such as masks. Instead of openly and honestly engaging with misinformation and explaining things to the public they took the authoritarian route of “take my word for it and do what we say”. Now the public’s trust in science and government is badly damaged.
Conspiracy theories can be true, in which case they are falsifiable and should be put to the test of open criticism. If they are unfalsifiable, the believer looks less credible and silly – and we should expose them to that, so they think more carefully next time. Ridicule is effective. It was when people started making fun of their rituals that the KKK ceased being a force in the US.
Finally, we routinely censor or ban some types of expression. One is calling for the commission of violence. Calling on people to kill makes you liable for the death of a person, and purposefully causing someone’s death is a serious crime. Almost no one thinks we should allow that kind of expression, and even if they did it is difficult to see how we could allow it without making our legal system incoherent.
Another is expressing a prejudice – what we call hate speech. The justification for banning hate speech is that it harms the hated person. If such speech does lead to violent harm, it should be prosecuted. Usually however, the harms referred to are discrimination or undermined dignity rather than violence. The justification for not considering the truth of a prejudicial statement is that the lie is far less harmful than discrimination and loss of dignity. That justification simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The prospect of facing outrage increases the chances that an idea is at least plausible because it makes offenders think before they speak.
Racist assertion
Consider the ramifications of allowing someone to make the racist assertion that members of one group get into trouble more often, and achieve less, than members of his group not because of oppression but because the two groups differ substantially in some trait or behaviour.
If the assertion is false, the racist is asking us to excuse his oppression and allow it to continue while letting him insult the vulnerable. It should be easy to prove if an assertion is false. Using force just raises the suspicion that the authorities have no good argument and hands the racist some unintended credibility. So why not use reason instead to counter the racist?
Now what if the assertion is true and we ban it? Then we guarantee strife and kill any chance of finding a solution. We will end up unjustly oppressing the racist’s group. We will put in place costly, but futile, measures to close the performance gap. At the same time, we will ban any effort to find real causes and solutions that might actually help.
When the program fails to close the gap, the insulted group will conclude that they need to do more and will double down. The racists, not aware of having oppressed anyone, will become increasingly resentful. Rinse and repeat until violent racial strife becomes the inevitable conclusion. In other words, being wrong but covering up the truth as a means to protect the vulnerable often turns out to be even more harmful than allowing the insult. We need to test offensive assertions rather than sweep them under the carpet.
So we must protect the right to express any unpopular or offensive view that falls short of calling for violence. A few organisations – like the Freedom Foundation and the Institute of Race Relations – do. It is the right and intelligent thing to do.
[Image: pablojuliann from Pixabay]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend