“Fire, Fire, Fire…” Christopher Hitchens says to his audience, a reference to Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes claim that by shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre one is misusing free speech. As Hitchens in his 2006 talk went on to explain, Holmes used this in his defense of the U.S. government’s arrest and jailing of writers of Yiddish anti-war pamphlets that challenged American entry into the First World War. A crisis, especially war, gives government and those who fear dissent or offensive opinions the justification to muzzle mouths and padlock a writer’s keyboard.
It seems absurd that every so often the case for free speech must be made, especially from within “free societies.” The culture war, the conservative “alliance,” and twenty-first century luxury ideologies such as wokism have all dug up the rationales for censorship. With a resurgence in fundamentalism in the health and police state we see a dangerous trend of labelling any expression of words or art as dangerous, offensive, and volatile. During the peak of the COVID pandemic, alternative opinions, even those from health professionals, were often censored. The state and corporations decided what was in the public’s best interest, even if nuanced facts were to be clumped with conspiracy theories; what was allowable became fluid and confusing.
For a time there was an attempt to cancel a Danish newspaper that had published a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad. Though years earlier the prophet had appeared as a Super Friend on South Park to little reaction, times had changed. Soon even South Park did not show him, as Comedy Central feared violent reactions. Those prone to throwing tantrums over an expression that they did not like were placated. In 2015, extremists murdered employees who worked for the French comedy magazine Charlie Hebdo after it had ‘insulted’ their prophet. In reaction politicians of many nations marched on the streets, declaring “I am Charlie Hebdo,” in solidarity with the slain and a stand for free speech, despite many of those politicians implementing anti-free speech laws in some form themselves. They could have also chanted, “I am David Irving,” if principled free speech was to be championed.
Comic books, music, and games that were once to be banned by conservatives are now embraced. The video nasties and pornographic violence of the past are considered “classics,” while the politically incorrect relics of history are censored, a white washing of art, This isn’t exclusive to left or right or partisan biases of liberal democracy, but is rather the impulse to silence, redact, and ban expression, a common ground for those seeking to rule thought itself.
When free speech is hindered, we end up experiencing a realm of unknowns; what is allowed becomes felt rather than defined. If one has to constantly check their words for fear of violence or arrest, we are prisoners to others. What is considered offensive, hateful, lewd, and dangerous varies according to each individual and the zeitgeist. Those who seek to police speech have a tendency to disregard nuance and context.
Must it be a practice for every speaker and writer or even artist to concern themselves with the violent impulses of each person in the world? The inability to offend and make fun of power or social absolutes reveals an insecurity and moral weakness of the censor prone. Those who claim to have faith, but would take life if they are offended, reveal themselves and the mob as a their own god. A god that suits their impulse, one that requires no restraint or tolerance but rather anger. The lesson is that violence and reckless outrage are the solution to all things; words are to be punished, while dangerous acts sympathized with. The killers are the victims and the speaker an instigator.
The laughable lie told in the past decade is that political correctness and cancel culture is a corporate-academic left invention. It has and will always be a factor of right-wing conservatives and especially those with a nationalist and religious focus. Communists and lefty types are certainly zealots and insecure with a desire to censor but they are not alone. An ideology of woke has infiltrated and polluted the academic, government, and corporate realms, itself a reaction to past bias that was once in the other direction. The banning of diverse expression, words, and language itself is the ideology of statist imperrialists.
Often when an ideology is on the outside of power it claims to celebrate free speech, even using it as a means to propagate and spread. Should the masters of such an ideology find power, they tend to control and remove such freedom from others. The very dissent they were allowed becomes intolerable. Whether Bolshevik or Nazi, woke or conservative censors they become.
You must be logged in to post a comment.