Freedom of speech and the court of public opinion
A few yeas ago, I was watching for a friend to finish up an online game. Someone in voice chat was yelling loudly, frequently using variations of the word “retard” as a slur. After the game ended, I asked if she knew the angry player in real-life, and she said that she’d met him once or twice, and he was working parttime at a convenience store after dropping out of community college. In both her eyes and mine, this explained and excused his behaviour. This anecdote has shaped my perception of the perceived restrictions on freedom of speech.
Since the turn of the century, there has been a lot of discourse on what words are appropriate to use, and for which communities. Some words are only ever used as slurs, others have varying levels of historical connotations and their censorship draws ire from the freedom of speech crowd. Various arguments abound: banning the words gives them more power, certain groups which have reclaimed the word are allowed to use it, removal of the words weaken language, liberals are all snowflakes, etc. I’m personally of the belief that it usually costs me very little to avoid using certain words, and if it causes hurt to others, the easy decision is to avoid the word.
When I attended college, there was a great push to eliminate the word “retard” and its variations as slurs. It was a very successful campaign, and virtually all my friends had stopped using the word by the time we graduated. So, imagine my surprise when I heard someone I had assumed was a peer use the word liberally. My friend’s explanation excused their behaviour because it showed that this individual was not, as elitist as it sounds, a peer. I’m friends with college dropouts and blue-collar workers, but they are my peers. They share some baseline political views and ethical values with me, so they would not use the work “retard” as a slur.
I realized that various taboo words had become reverse-shibboleths of sorts. Those who use them generally identify themselves as not belonging to a certain class of bicoastal liberal elite, to “polite society”. Granted, there will be the belligerent fratboy who is undeniably part of this society and uses these words, but even he will avoid them when not with his edgy friends. People who perceive themselves as progressive will not only refrain from using these words, but avoid spending time with those that do, lest others think that they share the same beliefs. This so-called censorship is self-enforced: those who self-censor do so out of personal interest, and those who don’t are generally only socially punished.
But conversely, the shunning is only effective if one believes themselves to be a part of that tribe. If someone says a slur, but no one is around to take offence, was it offensive? There’s the argument that it normalizes the behaviour which I don’t deny, but think is largely a second-hand effect. By using such language and flouting certain propriety in certain groups, it shows the commitment of the slur-user to this group, to so-called freedom of speech and against liberal snowflakes. Not like there were going to be any racial or sexual minorities in that social group to be hurt or offended. In a way, limiting the use of these words has given them power beyond their meaning.
Ironically, those complaining about freedom of speech aren’t being censored at all: it’s the other group that is doing the self-censoring. This applies to not only “retard”, but more offensive slurs referring to various minority groups that I will not put into writing. Of course, changing generational values results in discussions about what grandpa can and can’t say, which seems like censorship. But though the returning college student is saying “these words are hurtful and you shouldn’t say them,” and they may believe it, there is no one to hear this tree fall in the forest. These words are just jarring for the returning college student to hear. It causes cognitive dissonance: grandpa is a kindly old man, so why is he using these words that I’ve been told are evil? Is he a bad person? Am I a bad person for associating and liking him?”
To be clear, as a college-educated snowflake, I think these words cause harm when used cavalierly, owing to their history. But even if it weren’t for this belief, social decorum would demand that I do so. When I was younger and my parents were trying to talk me out of swearing, they employed plenty of arguments. Importantly, it was never that swearing was immoral, but rather that it was uncouth, unseeming, and no something that proper person should do. As important as it is for people to be empathetic, I will accept propriety and political correctness as a means to an end.
Freedom of speech has remained fundamentally unchanged in the West. Though it’s put on a pedestal in some countries more than others, the arrangement has generally been one where the government cannot discriminate or prosecute for their speech. At no point does this extend to the actions of individual citizens when someone chooses to express themselves freely. Just as I have the freedom to insult someone’s dead grandparent, they have the freedom to chose not to associate with me in any way going forward. And frankly, I don’t think insults were the topics that the right to expression were meant to protect.
Society has always operated this way, governing what is appropriate and not to say. In the last few years, freedom of speech and cancel culture have become prominent issues not only because of the polarization of the political landscape, but because of the ease of information proliferation. What is considered widely acceptable or at least borderline appropriate in one place, can be seen as wildly offensive in another, leading to outrage and demands for restitution. For large corporations who operate across the political spectrum as well as countries, this leads to difficulties creating marketing campaigns or dealing with employees who are at fault of a misstep. In these cases, they will always err on the side of political correctness.
However, the pendulum is slowly shifting back to the centre. After the last decades of cancelations, apologies, and fear in the hearts of bullies, society has also come to realize that there is too much dirt on everyone and anyone in the digital age. If the bar for social exclusion is set too low, everyone is guilty. Like how anyone could be found guilty of a crime in various authoritarian regimes owing to the sheer number of crimes with tough consequences, if anyone can be cancelled by scrolling down far enough on their Facebook account, is cancelling someone fair? Or does it really mean anything?
Ultimately, I think the ease of information transmission has caused everyone to be more respectful when they speak as a baseline. This is a net good on society, particularly in those that contain more diverse groups of people. There are also enough selfish reasons to consider speaking empathetically such that the only person who wouldn’t do so is one who is completely removed from the current mainstream discourse. Which is fine, because the company they keep is unlikely very pleasant anyways. Regardless of original intention, the phasing out of these loaded words has led to positive outcomes.
