Strossen, Professor of Law at New York University, former president of the ACLU, and defender of civil rights, recently wrote a book entitled Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship. Easier said than done, of course. She's right, though.
She makes an excellent case for saying that "hate speech" laws, which have been contemplated here and passed mainly in other countries, would do more harm than good for a number of reasons:
- That they in fact do not curb the speech they propose to curb;
- That violations of them result in more attention paid to the speech they wish to curb;
- That the words of particular restrictions can be turned on their head to actually help the people it's supposed to restrict;
- That violations of them result in more attention paid to those who make such speech; and
- Their enforceability is often subject to arbitrariousness that tends to defeat their original purpose.
She takes some deep analysis, with interesting international comparisons (because their devotion and tradition of free speech do not match ours), about how such bars to speech can harm the original purpose and overreach creates absurd restrictions. Her case is sound, though: Despite the emergence of 'hate speech' by particularly right-wing, alt-right groups and individuals, and strong, emotional reactions by minorities which have often resulted in university officials either backing away or resigning, the best solution is, in fact, to let the speech happen.
That doesn't necessarily mean that nothing should be done, though in some situations, simply walking away is probably for the best. Remaining above the fray does work sometimes, and removes what the speakers want the most: To be challenged and to shout back.
But what happens when people, especially college students, are genuinely offended by the speech? What good does it do to try to ignore what can't be ignored?
The greater question is: Whose responsibility is it to counteract what the 'hate speaker' is saying? Is it the college administration? Will that do it, or will that make the situation worse because in the end, they're forcing someone to shut up?
Strossen's commentary is roughly equivalent to that of another book I reviewed in this space more than a year ago: The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up A Generation of Failure, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. They come at the problem much more directly than she does, but the bottom line is: If you're insulted, don't go running to the president of your university. Stand up to your torturers yourself. You'll feel better if you do.
But how? Even Strossen admits that the first time she was confronted with what she believed to be outrageous, right-wing banter, she was stunned into silence. And it's easy to do; it's happened to me and I would gather many others. It took her a while to gather herself and consider alternative responses. By then, the moment had passed.
Nobody gets coached in what to do in those circumstances. At least, I've never had it, and I hung around the NEA for quite some time. There was education in what such people should say, to be sure, but how to respond at that moment is the point, and there was nothing that came close to that, largely because it has to be in a context that's unknown. Fighting the intrusion of right-wing nonsense became a major thrust of the NEA, and still is, as I'm sure it is with other groups that wish to combat it.
I think that's vital nowadays, now that 45's minions feel empowered to spread misinformation, lies and innuendoes. But the courage to stand up to it is enormous, because the attitudes with which such baloney is spread is often accompanied with bullying and the surety of religiosity behind it. When you don't own those attitudes, it's hard to bring yourself forward at the right moment. It's hard to act macho when that isn't your inclination.
Besides, confrontation may be a trap. Some of these people are coached well in turning what one may think are opposing phrases into empty nostrums. Stephen Miller is a good example. He's easily hateable, but it isn't easy to take him on. He interrupts, gets louder, and smears endlessly: It's the alt-right's M.O. No logic matters to him. It takes someone like CNN's Jake Tapper to stare him down and do what he did on his turf: Throw him out. But most of us don't get that opportunity.
Instead, says Strossen, it might be a good idea to create your own learning opportunities, have your own gatherings, and let people know that ideas of peace, sharing, and empowerment through cooperation still exist and are actually preferred. That takes work, time, and caring, but might be more rewarding. Then you get the advantage of message preparation and arrangement. You may get resistance from these twisted people, but you own the stage.
It may be the best way to demonstrate to college kids on how to organize and at least partly satisfy their need to even the scales. But there's no easy way out. This challenge is real and it will be diminished only with vigilance. Stability can be restored, but largely with determination and the willingness to get it wrong and make some mistakes so you can get it right.
More of this is proving to be necessary. We can no longer assume that a consensus of political mores and actions are evident. The alt-right is getting louder and crazier, and will continue for some time to come, regardless of the results of the 2020 elections (that, too, is an assumption we have to get used to). Merely walking away from anger and imbalance is proving to be inadequate. They can't be the only voices in the room--name the room.
It will take years to bring this back to a place of equilibrium. We saw it coming but didn't take it seriously until it was too late and we had the wrong person in ultimate power. Now it will take that much more work to put it to some semblance of rest. If it isn't done, we are all at risk, even those who don't think so.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
But how? Even Strossen admits that the first time she was confronted with what she believed to be outrageous, right-wing banter, she was stunned into silence. And it's easy to do; it's happened to me and I would gather many others. It took her a while to gather herself and consider alternative responses. By then, the moment had passed.
Nobody gets coached in what to do in those circumstances. At least, I've never had it, and I hung around the NEA for quite some time. There was education in what such people should say, to be sure, but how to respond at that moment is the point, and there was nothing that came close to that, largely because it has to be in a context that's unknown. Fighting the intrusion of right-wing nonsense became a major thrust of the NEA, and still is, as I'm sure it is with other groups that wish to combat it.
I think that's vital nowadays, now that 45's minions feel empowered to spread misinformation, lies and innuendoes. But the courage to stand up to it is enormous, because the attitudes with which such baloney is spread is often accompanied with bullying and the surety of religiosity behind it. When you don't own those attitudes, it's hard to bring yourself forward at the right moment. It's hard to act macho when that isn't your inclination.
Besides, confrontation may be a trap. Some of these people are coached well in turning what one may think are opposing phrases into empty nostrums. Stephen Miller is a good example. He's easily hateable, but it isn't easy to take him on. He interrupts, gets louder, and smears endlessly: It's the alt-right's M.O. No logic matters to him. It takes someone like CNN's Jake Tapper to stare him down and do what he did on his turf: Throw him out. But most of us don't get that opportunity.
Instead, says Strossen, it might be a good idea to create your own learning opportunities, have your own gatherings, and let people know that ideas of peace, sharing, and empowerment through cooperation still exist and are actually preferred. That takes work, time, and caring, but might be more rewarding. Then you get the advantage of message preparation and arrangement. You may get resistance from these twisted people, but you own the stage.
It may be the best way to demonstrate to college kids on how to organize and at least partly satisfy their need to even the scales. But there's no easy way out. This challenge is real and it will be diminished only with vigilance. Stability can be restored, but largely with determination and the willingness to get it wrong and make some mistakes so you can get it right.
More of this is proving to be necessary. We can no longer assume that a consensus of political mores and actions are evident. The alt-right is getting louder and crazier, and will continue for some time to come, regardless of the results of the 2020 elections (that, too, is an assumption we have to get used to). Merely walking away from anger and imbalance is proving to be inadequate. They can't be the only voices in the room--name the room.
It will take years to bring this back to a place of equilibrium. We saw it coming but didn't take it seriously until it was too late and we had the wrong person in ultimate power. Now it will take that much more work to put it to some semblance of rest. If it isn't done, we are all at risk, even those who don't think so.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment