If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION has long been regarded as the
cornerstone of liberty. Indeed, without the ability to speak our minds freely
the whole notion of liberty begins to unravel. Freedom of expression is vital in
at least one other respect – it helps us to arrive at and recognise the truth.
This is important because, as many philosophers and religious leaders have
observed, it is the truth that sets us free.
The Left’s relationship with freedom of expression has never
been an easy one. Ever since the French Revolution of 1789-99 the desire to
maintain the purity of the revolutionary message has weighed heavily against
those who dared to raise objections concerning the Revolution’s means – if not
its ends.
The relaxation of state censorship is the first and most
important gift to any revolutionary cause. Historically, the sudden appearance
of posters, pamphlets, newspapers and books authored by those whose voices had
hitherto been suppressed has always been the surest sign that the old order was
crumbling. In today’s repressive regimes it is the unfettered use of social
media: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and blogs; which signals the arrival of the
revolutionary moment. Think of the Arab Spring.
In its youth the Revolution hails freedom of expression as
sacrosanct. The revolutionaries know that without it the power of the elites cannot
be challenged. As the Revolution matures, however, and new power structures begin
to replace the old, the criticism and analysis which freedom of expression
makes possible seems less and less like an unqualified good. To the new
occupants of these new structures, it is the protection and consolidation of
the Revolution’s gains that should take priority. There is no surer sign that
the Revolution is over than when the new power elite begins to punish people
for exercising their right to free speech.
By this analysis it is clear that the social and cultural
revolutions of the 1960s and 70s have well-and-truly passed their expiry date.
The great provocations of the Hippy era: think of the Broadway musical “Hair”;
the proliferation of revolutionary underground comics; the human “Be-Ins” and
“Love-Ins”; Ken Kesey’s “Acid tests”; would today be dismissed as either infantile
or inappropriate.
Only last week, on the University of California’s Berkeley
campus, birthplace of the “free speech movement” which touched off the student
revolt of the 1960s, the world was treated to the spectacle of furious students
doing everything in their power to prevent the Alt-Right provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos,
from exercising his right to (yep, you guessed it) free speech.
In discussing these sorts of incidents with contemporary
leftists, I have been staggered by the consistency of their responses. “What
you’ve got to understand, Chris,” they reply, “is that while people have the
right to express themselves, they have no right to expect that the things they
say will not have consequences.”
If free speech is met with "consequences" - is it any longer free?
Just what those consequences look like can be seen every
hour of every day on social media. Relentless incivility; extraordinary
personal abuse; the issuing of threats to attack (and even kill) those whose
expression is deemed offensive to, or transgressive of, the great revolutionary
“truths” of the once “new” social movements; this, sadly, has become the norm
on what passes for the “Left” in 2017.
The liberal tradition of responding to the expression of
ideas with which you disagree with a reasoned, evidence-based argument in
rebuttal no longer seems to fall within either the ideological of intellectual
repertoire of today’s left-wingers. The only form of argument they seem capable
of deploying is the abusive and circumstantial “Argumentum ad Hominem” –
attacking the person rather than his or her ideas.
In his celebrated treatise, “On Liberty”, the nineteenth
century English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, states: “If all mankind minus
one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he
had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
In the ears of far too many contemporary leftists this
oft-quoted passage will sound either incomprehensible or offensive. (Mill does,
after all, use the sexist noun “mankind” rather than the more appropriate and
gender-neutral term, “Humanity”.) To their way of thinking it is entirely right
and proper that those who give voice to offensive or hateful opinions should be
silenced. If these people would rather not endure the consequences of
exercising their freedom of expression, then they should STFU.
“Those who defy the self-evident truths of the new order,”
thunder its uncompromising defenders, “must endure the consequences –
humiliation and pain!”
What tyrant king or totalitarian dictator could possibly
disagree?
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Wednesday, 8 February 2017.
