By David Harsanyi
Thursday, July 20, 2017
“Ads that perpetuate gender stereotypes will be banned in
UK, but not in the good ol’ USA!” reads a recent headline at the Web site
Jezebel. Yay to the good ol’ USA for continuing to value the fundamental right
of free expression, you might say. Or maybe not.
Why would a feminist — or anyone, for that matter —
celebrate the idea of empowering bureaucrats to decide how we talk about
“gender stereotypes”? Because these days, foundational values mean increasingly
little to those who believe hearing something disagreeable is the worst thing
that could happen to them.
Sometimes you need a censor, this Jezebel writer points
out, because nefarious conglomerates like “Big Yogurt” have been “targeting
women for decades.” She, and the British, apparently, don’t believe that women
have the capacity to make consumer choices or the inner strength to ignore ads
peddling probiotic yogurts.
This is why the “Committee of Advertising Practice” (and
boy, it takes a lot of willpower not to use the cliché “Orwellian” to describe
a group that hits it on the nose with this kind of ferocity) is such a smart
idea. They will ban, among others, commercials in which family members “create
a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up,” ones that
suggest “an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically
associated with boys, or vice versa,” and ones in which a man “tries and fails
to perform simple parental or household tasks.”
If you believe this kind of thing is the bailiwick of the
state, it’s unlikely you have much use for the Constitution. I’m not trying to
pick on this one writer. Acceptance of speech restrictions is a growing problem
among millennials (one poll, for example, shows 40 percent of them okay with
limiting speech offensive to minorities) and Democrats (more than 50 percent
have warmed of the idea of banning hate speech). For them, opaque notions of “fairness”
and “tolerance” have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance.
You can see it with TV personalities like Chris Cuomo,
former Democratic Party presidential hopeful Howard Dean, mayors of big cities,
and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claiming that “hate speech is not
protected by the Constituion.” It is Sen. Dianne Feinstein arguing for
heckler’s vetoes in public university systems. It’s major political candidates
arguing that open discourse gives “aid and comfort” to our enemies.
If it’s not Big Yogurt, it’s Big Oil or Big
Somethingorother. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First
Amendment and ban political speech because of “fairness.” This position and its
justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not,
though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First
Amendment than Donald Trump’s tweets mocking CNN.
It’s about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a
professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the
American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper
like Los Angeles Times. She claims
that hate speech should be banned because it has “been linked to cigarette
smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress
disorder, and requires complex coping strategies.” Nearly every censor in the
history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some
harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept
expanding the definition of harm until they shut down the rights of their
political opponents.
Anyone who’s watched partisan groups like the Southern
Poverty Law Center, who accuse civil rights lawyers of being in a “hate group,”
understands where this goes.
Actually, you can see where it’s going by checking out
Europe. Dismiss slippery slope arguments if you like, but in Germany, where
“hate speech” has been banned, police have raided the homes of at least 36
people accused of posting “illegal content.” There is a proposed bill right now
in Germany that would fine social media companies millions of dollars for
failure to remove hate speech within 24 hours. When debates about immigration
are at the forefront in Germany, the threat to abuse these laws is great.
In England, a man was recently sentenced to more than a
year in prison after being found guilty for stirring up religious hatred with a
stupid posting on Facebook. There are “hate crimes” cops who not only hunt down
citizens who say things deemed inappropriate but implore snitches to report on
the vulgar words of their fellow citizens.
When I was young, liberals would often offer some
iteration of the quote misattributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you
say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This was typically
in defense of artwork that was offensive to Christians or bourgeoisie types; a
soiled painting of Mary or a bad heavy metal album, or whatnot.
You don’t hear much of that today. You’re more likely to
hear “I disapprove of what you say, so shut up.” Idealism isn’t found in the
notions of Enlightenment but in identity and indignation. And if you don’t
believe this demand to mollycoddle every notion on the Left portends danger for
freedom of expression, you haven’t been paying attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment