Yes, a strong distinction between the expression of opinion and violence is a social construct, but it’s one of the best social constructs for peaceful coexistence, innovation and progress that’s ever been invented. Ironically, the whole point of freedom of speech, from its beginning, has been to enable people to sort things out without resorting to violence.Ī quotation often attributed to Sigmund Freud (which he attributed to another writer) conveys this: “The first human being who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.” (Conveniently, they draw the line based on their personal views: if it’s speech that they happen to hate, then it just might be violence.) They conclude that this means it’s an arbitrary distinction-and that, since it’s arbitrary, the line can be put where they please. On campus, I often run into people-not only students, but professors-who seem to think they’re the first to notice that the speech/violence distinction is a social construct. I am therefore submitting something that is less of an article and more of a listicle: responses to some of the most common arguments against freedom of speech, and, where possible, suggestions for additional reading.Īssertion: Free speech was created under the false notion that words and violence are distinct, but we now know that certain speech is more akin to violence.Īnswer: Speech equals violence isn’t a new idea. In a recent episode of her podcast, Iona Italia expressed frustration about bad arguments against freedom of speech that she’s had to combat over and over again.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |