The Intellectual Dark Web's freedoms
By David Tizzard
“Fire! Fire!”
It's OK, we're not in a crowded theatre so the above is completely acceptable.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s decision in Schenck v. the United States, which judged that the defendant's opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, still reverberates around society. The question, whether it relates to a baker and sexual proclivities, a pug dog and its tricks, or the various cumberworlds we experience online, still reaches out to us 100 years later.
What can and cannot be said?
As an absolutist, one might reason that anything might be said. Voltaire's apocryphal quote, “I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death you're right to say it,” should be one of the cornerstones of any truly modern and functioning society. We do not, nor should not, prevent others from speaking merely because we disagree with them or because we are offended by what they say.
Education and caring mothers used to teach us that sticks and stones may break our bones, but names, they would never truly hurt us. They were just rather harmless insults thrown about and never to be taken too seriously. A game to be played on the hill of Areopagitica.
And yet in the blink of an eye we have moved from the great debates of Athens, bypassed Milton, Paine and Mill, and now live in a world of trigger warnings, micro-aggressions, no-platforming and various other neologisms that make one want to finally break out the aforementioned twigs and pebbles and set about doing some actual damage. Decency, of course, prevents us from doing so but the point remains real. Why are we no longer saying what we want to say?
Stephen Fry recently took part in a debate on political correctness with a public figure at the center of much of the current controversies, Jordan Peterson. They were rather interestingly on the same side. Before attending to the Jungian-influenced psychologist, let us first address Mr. Fry.
He lamented rather cogently that many around him had simply given up on the idea of speaking their mind. They were too worried, he continued, that the public ― not the law, remember ― the public might find them having contravened the current acceptable norms and were therefore in need of a rather unbridled and vehement dressing down. The leftist thought police or a social media mob would be quick to knock on one's door or bang their twitter handle. People have thus become afraid to speak, he rallied because there was no longer much debate between a wide assemblage of opinions, but instead a homogenization of thought. Yet freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. We are, after all, all fallible, are we not?
Onto Mr. Peterson then who, along with a whole host of other figures, has been elevated into the public consciousness rather abruptly and some might say unnecessary. With Ben Shapiro, Brett and Eric Weinstein, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan and many others that have been labeled part of the “Intellectual Dark Web,” Jordan Peterson has seemingly sidestepped mainstream media and found millions willing to listen to his lectures and ideas through the use of social media and user-controlled content. And for everyone that has found value in his work, there are many more that take great umbrage with his views. So much so that measures are taken to prevent him and the aforementioned cohorts from speaking at various public events.
But really? In the wider context of things, are the ideas of a previously unknown Canadian professor who has read Jung, Nietzsche and Freud and likes talking about the Bible that troubling to people that he must be no-platformed? His words are neither sticks nor stones. They are merely that: words. Some are interesting; some not so much. To attempt to categorize everything he says under one convenient umbrella term, however, merely brings to mind Soren Kierkegaard's cromulent observation: People much prefer free speech to free thought, because the latter would mean they would actually have to think.
The point is we are not fit to control the speech of others. We may of course warn them that their utterances may have rather dire social consequences should they continue; however, providing that they are delivered with no direct violence or physical harm to others, we do not have the right to stop them saying what they might. And in this list of people that we may not stop from speaking I include religious extremists, holocaust deniers, communists, Everton supporters, fans of Justin Bieber and those that use the phrase “I could care less.”
Despite how awful and frankly distasteful the above are, we simply do not have the grounds on which we might prevent them from speaking their minds. Consider J.S. Mill's arguments put forward in his brilliant work “On Liberty.” As humans we are fallible and therefore have no way of truly telling whether what they say is right or not. What is right and what is in good taste has been clearly demonstrated to have changed both according to the times and the places in which utterances are made.
Thus, we are left with two options. Perhaps what they say is true and therefore it must be allowed to be said. Conversely, even if we know deep down that what they say is false, it must still be expressed for it will provide greater clarity to the real truth in comparison.
As someone tasked with the responsibility of teaching a generation of university undergraduates each year, I impress on them Aristotle's maxim as much as I can: It is truly the mark of an educated mind if one can entertain an idea without accepting it. And that should echo out into society a little bit more than it is doing at the moment.
Yes, people might say things that you find intolerable, offensive or damn right dastardly. But neither you, nor anyone else, is the master of another's thoughts. And nor should you be. You have the right to say and think whatever you want. But, remember, so does everyone else.
David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University and host of TBS eFM's cultural radio show "A Little of a Lot." The show can be heard every Sunday from 4 p.m.-6 p.m. on 101.3 FM or downloaded via online platforms such as iTunes and Podbang.