To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
Frederick Douglass
Last month, the University of Ottawa sparked controversy when a senior administrator instructed right-wing American pundit Ann Coulter about what she is permitted to say ahead of her speech at the university campus. The administrator told Coulter in an email (via the National Post):
If Canada's hate-speech laws stopped at silencing Coulter, and Coulter only, then there wouldn't be a reason to be concerned, but they don't. Why should it be the university's business to classify certain speech as hate-speech? Jacques Barzun wrote that the university's primary task "is Scholarship." "By its policy," said Barzun, "a university may favor or hinder the birth of new truth." If the administrator from the University of Ottawa was aiming for "Respect" and "Civility" then he should have shut up, minded his own business, and let the students hear the idiocy spouted by a modern political pundit.
The dangers in a government that exercises hate-speech laws against opinionated individuals are the same dangers that not-so opinionated individuals eventually face, if such an anti-freedom law isn't declared ludicrous in its early stages of enforcement. In 2006, Glenn Greenwald warned against the idea that silencing anybody in a public forum is justifiable, because once it is accepted, those who at first exercise the anti-speech law may see their fortunes reversed, and suffer under the same law once a new leadership, with different ideas in mind, is in control. Greenwald wrote:
While it is true that Americans support free speech in greater numbers than citizens in other Western countries, censorship of certain issues is practiced by the major media and the government, and a lot of citizens are intolerant of some ideas. For instance, suggesting that the US government was behind 9/11 is not tolerated at all by anyone in the media. Even by raising the question you are automatically deemed a conspiracy theorist and treated like an infidel.
The problem underlining all types of censorship is the inability to withstand facts and opinions that we don't approve of. Thin skins and small minds are the reasons for the existence of hate-speech laws, not any idealistic reasons like securing the common good from the idiots and bigots on the political fringe.
No good can come from shutting off debate. Covering our ears, and closing our minds go together. The truth is intolerant. Facts are uncompromising. We are supposed to be rattled and shaken up by speech. If a Muslim devotee can't stand the thought that Mohammed was a violent conqueror, then he should renounce his faith, or grow a thicker skin. A religious man should only be concerned with his own behavior and thoughts, and not those of anyone else. Too many liberals in the West are afraid of stating their beliefs because they don't coincide with Muslim thinking. The dangers of giving extreme religious individuals too much "dignity, and self-respect" are more serious than not giving them any.
I was born in a country that is ran by hypocritical Mullahs who justified using violence to get into power. My father was tortured by one of these "self-respecting" Muslims during his stay in prison in the early 1980's, after the Islamic revolution in Iran, and he also watched the execution of his friend at the hands of a couple of Muslim guards. So respecting Islamic radicals is the last thing the West should be doing. Muslims can be dignified, sure, but a true religious man isn't one who searches the newspapers for respect, and then cries out when he doesn't find any. If you respect yourself, and you love God, then the contents of a magazine shouldn't matter.
If a University doesn't teach disinterestedness, intellectual tolerance, and self-confidence in one's opinions and judgments, then what is it good for? And if liberal-minded people can't realize that the thought police knows no boundaries, then what is it good for? Sadly, both the university and liberal-minded people are only good for government censorship, anti-speech laws, and thought control. In previous eras, they were the victims of the abuse of power, but today, they serve as the mindless functionaries of it. But that could change in the future. As Wendy McElroy writes in "Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Academe":
Frederick Douglass
Last month, the University of Ottawa sparked controversy when a senior administrator instructed right-wing American pundit Ann Coulter about what she is permitted to say ahead of her speech at the university campus. The administrator told Coulter in an email (via the National Post):
"Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."
Although I would like nothing more than for someone to put a duct tape over Mr. Ann Coulter's mouth, hiding behind the law and attacking people who hold opinions that offend, and even infuriate you, is cowardly, and petty. I prefer individuals to speak their minds, and that includes all the annoying idiots and shallow pundits who appear daily on the media. I'm against hate speech laws, but more so, I'm against the idea that we must not let people air out their stupid and ill-informed thoughts. Why should I mark a fortress around Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter? Let my enemy speak, otherwise, how would the world know for certain that I am smarter and more reasonable than him? Every man, and that includes Coulter, has the right to sound as stupid as he wish. In fact, civil society will benefit from having on record all the stupid statements that is made by pundits like Coulter, so that we can throw it in their faces, and they can't deny that they ever said it. If you don't want to tolerate Coulter, then don't buy her book and attend her speeches. Otherwise, shut up.
Here is just a small sample of all the stupid, wrong-headed, and deliberately evil statements that Coulter has made over the years:
Here is just a small sample of all the stupid, wrong-headed, and deliberately evil statements that Coulter has made over the years:
There is obviously a very vile mind at work here. But such a person can't be taken seriously. The anti-liberal fetish that a lot of conservatives have got old years ago. In fact, the entire culture war was highly exaggerated by the two dominant political parties, book publishers and the propaganda media. There are no liberal overlords in the media. And not everybody who is lied to by the mainstream media on a daily basis is a political or social conservative who watches Fox News. I assume Coulter realizes this, or else she is a true idiot. But I doubt it. She has done a great marketing job by appealing to the small-minded bigots in North America, and the Republican government worshipers who love war, torture and death, but she doesn't pose any serious violent threat because of what she says. She is just another example that in our modern political culture even idiots are allowed to state their opinions and get rich. She is not to be feared, but mocked and laughed at."Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots.""We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
If Canada's hate-speech laws stopped at silencing Coulter, and Coulter only, then there wouldn't be a reason to be concerned, but they don't. Why should it be the university's business to classify certain speech as hate-speech? Jacques Barzun wrote that the university's primary task "is Scholarship." "By its policy," said Barzun, "a university may favor or hinder the birth of new truth." If the administrator from the University of Ottawa was aiming for "Respect" and "Civility" then he should have shut up, minded his own business, and let the students hear the idiocy spouted by a modern political pundit.
The dangers in a government that exercises hate-speech laws against opinionated individuals are the same dangers that not-so opinionated individuals eventually face, if such an anti-freedom law isn't declared ludicrous in its early stages of enforcement. In 2006, Glenn Greenwald warned against the idea that silencing anybody in a public forum is justifiable, because once it is accepted, those who at first exercise the anti-speech law may see their fortunes reversed, and suffer under the same law once a new leadership, with different ideas in mind, is in control. Greenwald wrote:
And those who want to justify hate speech laws do so by focusing on the evils of the "discriminatory" or bigoted speech they want to outlaw (who would oppose punishment of racists and Nazis and other assorted bigots?). But to endorse a government power due to one's hatred towards the individual against whom it is being exercised is, by definition, to endorse the government power generally. And the power that ends up being endorsed is never confined to those initial, emotionally appealing cases, but instead always expands.Two years ago, Canada's premier magazine, Maclean's, came under fire for publishing an article in October 2006 called "The future belongs to Islam". The Canadian Islamic Congress said that the magazine was violating a hate speech law, and that the article in question injured the "dignity, feelings, and self-respect," of Muslims. The Wall Street Journal reported on the case, and made the comparison between America's promotion of free speech for whatever purposes, and Europe and Canada's decision to outlaw some opinions in the name of preventing low self-esteem among some groups in society.
While it is true that Americans support free speech in greater numbers than citizens in other Western countries, censorship of certain issues is practiced by the major media and the government, and a lot of citizens are intolerant of some ideas. For instance, suggesting that the US government was behind 9/11 is not tolerated at all by anyone in the media. Even by raising the question you are automatically deemed a conspiracy theorist and treated like an infidel.
The problem underlining all types of censorship is the inability to withstand facts and opinions that we don't approve of. Thin skins and small minds are the reasons for the existence of hate-speech laws, not any idealistic reasons like securing the common good from the idiots and bigots on the political fringe.
No good can come from shutting off debate. Covering our ears, and closing our minds go together. The truth is intolerant. Facts are uncompromising. We are supposed to be rattled and shaken up by speech. If a Muslim devotee can't stand the thought that Mohammed was a violent conqueror, then he should renounce his faith, or grow a thicker skin. A religious man should only be concerned with his own behavior and thoughts, and not those of anyone else. Too many liberals in the West are afraid of stating their beliefs because they don't coincide with Muslim thinking. The dangers of giving extreme religious individuals too much "dignity, and self-respect" are more serious than not giving them any.
I was born in a country that is ran by hypocritical Mullahs who justified using violence to get into power. My father was tortured by one of these "self-respecting" Muslims during his stay in prison in the early 1980's, after the Islamic revolution in Iran, and he also watched the execution of his friend at the hands of a couple of Muslim guards. So respecting Islamic radicals is the last thing the West should be doing. Muslims can be dignified, sure, but a true religious man isn't one who searches the newspapers for respect, and then cries out when he doesn't find any. If you respect yourself, and you love God, then the contents of a magazine shouldn't matter.
If a University doesn't teach disinterestedness, intellectual tolerance, and self-confidence in one's opinions and judgments, then what is it good for? And if liberal-minded people can't realize that the thought police knows no boundaries, then what is it good for? Sadly, both the university and liberal-minded people are only good for government censorship, anti-speech laws, and thought control. In previous eras, they were the victims of the abuse of power, but today, they serve as the mindless functionaries of it. But that could change in the future. As Wendy McElroy writes in "Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Academe":
If the tables turn in a sufficiently jarring manner, then perhaps the speech code crusaders will remember a key lesson – namely, that censorship does not serve the interests of victimized groups. It always serves those in power, with whom rests the decision of what to censor.
