Liberals like free speech. I can’t blame them; it’s pretty rad. Some people are really weird about it, though.
Take, for example, the priorities that the “freedom of speech” crowd often has. When Milo Yiannopolous is deplatformed, that’s a violation of free speech apparently. Some think that when people say “I don’t want you to run that op-ed in the New York Times,” that’s a violation of free speech. “This study really sucks” has been cited as infringing on someone’s freedom of speech as well. That’s all really weird. Milo Yiannopolous has lost most his credibility, but that’s largely due to him imploding on himself. Many of his ideas are still see the light of day. It is weird to think that a speech multiplier like the New York Times should be free from criticism, itself a form of speech. And when a study sucks, it sucks.
To help illuminate how people get to this place, let’s look at a more extreme position. Some people take a universally absolutist approach to free speech. That is, they want a general, broad flourishing of whatever speech people want to provide. It is an odd idolization of speech as an inherent good as opposed to a means to an end. These people are the types who create and support websites like Voat and 8chan. It is notable that these websites do not become representative of the types of speech people want to provide, but rather become hubs for illiberal viewpoints. As it turns out, liberalism provided the rope from which it was hung.
As Justin McElroy eloquently put it, “for the millionth time the first amendment protects you from the government not the justin”. Early liberalism was much more concerned with keeping the state, with its monopoly on legitimate violence, from interfering with speech. In the United States, discussion about the freedom of speech has shifted towards non-state actors. I think this is a good development, both because it signals that we already have strong protections from government intervention in our speech, and because it shows a more keen awareness of the importance of culture in maintaining a healthy society. However, many people have not recognized the difference between how the state should handle speech and how non-state society should handle speech. The clear and strong freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution is necessary because the state is very willing to use guns. The supposed freedom of speech violations we see in society are often another form of speech. This should prompt us to acknowledge that not all speech is created equal; some kinds of speech are detrimental to a healthy society.
What’s concerning is that some 1) don’t recognize this, and then 2) defend speech which limits other speech. When white people march through neighborhoods chanting “they will not replace us,” that has a chilling effect on ethnic and racial minorities. If a gay man is called a slur, he will probably be less inclined to speak his piece. These are far more potent than “your study REALLY sucks” or “we shouldn’t let him speak here” or “maybe we shouldn’t magnify this person’s speech a thousand-fold.” When deplatformed individuals complain about being silenced, what they’re really saying is they are upset they no longer can speak louder than everyone else. When people complain that they aren’t allowed to call people slurs, what they’re really saying is they’re upset they can’t pressure others into silence.
I have some experience relevant to this topic, having moderated several internet communities for many years. When the above conception of “freedom of speech” is prioritized, a few loud and highly unrepresentative voices manage to push out the other voices. It doesn’t lead to a flourishing of viewpoints, lively debate, or greater understanding. It leads to unhealthy, incestuous discussions ruling the day. When unparliamentary language and other speech-suppressants (such as the dog-whistles which replace slurs) are banned, the viewpoints expressed become diverse and the debates become fruitful.
Speech is not an inherent good. What makes speech so important is that it is powerful. It is a key tool for the flourishing of individual and social life. Just as one can use a hammer well or poorly, some speech is good and other speech is bad. The state should stay well away from regulating how a person speaks, but it is a different dynamic in society. If someone has their speech pushed into second-class status by other speech, that isn’t healthy or just; that is an auto-immune disorder.
Again, it is important to realize what constitutes normal speech and what constitutes special speech. It is hard to claim that one has a right to write an editorial for the New York Times given that very few people possibly can. In addition, it is a speech multiplier, making the author’s speech far louder than the rest. Together, this makes writing for the New York Times a special privilege to be carefully distributed, not a prerequisite for freedom of speech. Being banned from an obscure internet forum is not a violation of free speech; just go outside and talk to a person. If someone is afraid of showing up in public spaces or speaking about their experiences for fear of violence or retaliation, that is a problem.
Noah Berlatsky touched on a similar theme in “Free Speech and Marginalized People” for Liberal Currents. He notes that just being controversial isn’t enough to get speech suppressed—just look at President Trump. Instead, it is oppressed people who consistently have their speech suppressed, since they don’t have the means to make people listen. It is a self-reinforcing cycle: if one is denied the ability to speak or has their speech pushed into second-class status, then it is much harder to convince people that their speech is worth listening to.
So, what’s the biggest non-state threat to free speech? Amplified hate speech. Hate speech attacks an entire category of people at once. It encourages people in that category to remain silent out of fear of further retaliation. To amplify hate speech would be to significantly platform it, to advertise it or spread it to a wider audience than the speaker could’ve done on their own. Amplified hate speech is a coordinated attack on freedom of speech, and so liberals must fight against it.