By Theodore Kupfer
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Sloppy thinking usually isn’t a criminal offense. Then
again, Sarah Jones at the New Republic
has written a essay called “How Donald Trump Poisons Free Speech.” Jones, the
magazine’s social-media editor, asks the empirical question, “Is it ever
possible to define, and then fairly restrict, dangerous speech?” She winds up
answering a different, normative one: “Free speech isn’t a pure and abstract
good,” Jones says, and “no law, even when it is enshrined in the Constitution,
can alone justify an absolute position on free speech.” If Jones, a leftist (don’t call
her a liberal!), had stuck to answering the question she asked, she might
have arrived at a different conclusion. For the very same “absolutism” that
Jones thinks should be abandoned is what stops government officials such as
Donald Trump from declaring ideas such as hers to be dangerous and throwing
their exponents in jail.
But I don’t need to tell her that. No leftist can forget Schenck v. United States or the American
public’s sundry red scares, and Jones is apparently intimately familiar with
the history: To support her proposition that free-speech “absolutism” needs to
be “re-examined,” Jones borrows logic from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Schenck. In short, the political climate
is what it is, and white-supremacist ideas are what they are; consequently, the
expression of those ideas carries a clear and present danger of criminal
activity. Where Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Schenck that “the character of every act depends upon the
circumstances in which it is done,” Jones puts her own riff on it: Free speech,
“like all civil liberties, is shaped by the context in which it occurs.”
White-supremacist terrorism sometimes follows
white-supremacist demonstrations, and Jones draws a straight line between the speech
and the violence. For one, the alt-right is “radicalizing whites online.” They
also tend to to carry guns. There’s even evidence that “rhetoric that
dehumanizes and stigmatizes” causes hate crimes. All of this, Jones says, means
that “speech can harm” when it comes from Nazis. The recent decision by the
ACLU not to represent armed protestors, the apparent occasion for her piece, is
a logical consequence of that argument.
It’s clear that Jones is sympathetic to the ACLU’s
newfound reticence to defend two rights at once. She’s also sympathetic to its
critics, who contend that the organization’s still-expansive reading of the
First Amendment needs a revision. And while the activity of legal advocacy
groups has consequences for policy and the law – consider the ACLU’s history —
Jones is circumspect about what exactly those should be.
That’s ultimately to the detriment of her fellow comrades
on the left. An alternative reading of the First Amendment, one in which speech
only deserves protection if it accords with a holistic picture of who is and
isn’t marginalized, would be ripe for abuse precisely because of today’s
political climate. Sure, the front of white nationalism continues to advance,
which Jones says “chills free speech for those on the left.” But a more direct
way to squash free speech for those on the left would be for free-speech
absolutists to listen to Sarah Jones. If the ACLU stops defending armed
protestors, who will defend the John Brown Gun Club or antifa? If the
government starts deciding what speech is dangerous, who will really be
empowered?
The obvious answers to these questions might have
convinced Jones to spike the essay if she considered them. Unfortunately, she
merely pays lip service to the idea that “attempts to define dangerous speech”
can lead to “future acts of censorship.” She never seriously engages with the
sundry examples of that happening in reality, instead pivoting to say that
actually, free speech hurts oppressed people (a
notion that is, let us say, dubious). None of those examples — examples
that would quickly become of interest to leftists were Trump to take Jones’s
advice — make it into her piece. Neither does the idea that Donald Trump’s, or
Jeff Sessions’s, or Neil Gorsuch’s definition of dangerous speech might not be
isometric with Sarah Jones’s.
She seems to be groping in the direction of an argument
from morality: Free speech isn’t good because it allows for the proliferation
of immoral ideas, the sort of which are inherently violent. The problem is that
some people still think the expropriation of private property and the
re-education of kulaks is morally
correct, and there were points in the not-so-distant past that the advocacy of
those ideas paved the way for immoral and violent outcomes. But Jones, I presume,
doesn’t want leftists to be thrown in jail; it may be she thinks Trump prefers
Lucaks to Kolakowski.
Jones does identify a troublesome quirk of the pro-speech
position: that it can seem relativistic, or worse. It shouldn’t be hard for any
of us to say that advocating white nationalism is morally wrong, nor should
verbal gymnastics accompany the declaration that, yes, the ethnic cleansing
Richard Spencer dreams of is inherently violent. Of course, that some ideas are
evil is no excuse to abandon prudent policy, but it’s a qualification that
generally ought to be acknowledged. If nothing else, then, this article can
teach honest defenders of free speech not to concede the moral high ground.
An uncharitable reading would assume that Jones forgot
the question she set out to answer. Perhaps, though, something does bridge the
gap between her question — “is it possible?” — and her answer — “it’s
advisable”: an assumption that the people defining and restricting dangerous
speech will ultimately be her people.
In an era when a supposedly democratic form of socialism is ascendant on the
left, it’s worth interrogating the ideas circulating there at length; one of
them, make no mistake, is that the criminalization of political speech can be
justified. (No movement is monolithic, of course, and some leftists have pushed
back.) That Sarah Jones supports giving right-wing authorities the power to
criminalize speech doesn’t bode well for her right now. But the proliferation
of authoritarianism on the burgeoning socialist Left doesn’t bode well for any
of us. Try that for an “unsettling reality.”
No comments:
Post a Comment