By Katherine Timpf
Saturday, December 21, 2019
On Friday, I caught a little bit of flack for calling
Star Wars fans “nerds” on Fox News.
This was, of course, not surprising to me. I knew
my comments would piss some people off — after all, how could I forget
receiving a barrage of death threats over joking about the franchise back in
2015.
Now, nothing on my current Twitter feed even comes close
to the level of vitriol that I received a few Novembers ago. However, one
person shared an article that shocked me even more than any of the murder
threats or calls to throw acid in my face: Apparently, a British psychologist
had actually, recently, earnestly suggested that what I had just said should be
considered a hate crime with legal consequences.
Dr. Sonja Falck (who, by the way, is also a psychology
lecturer at the University of East London) made an appearance on Good
Morning Britain on Thursday, and she sincerely suggested classifying the
use of words and phrases such as “nerd,” “geek,” “brainiac” “know-it-all,”
“dweeb,” “brain box,” “smart***,” or “egghead” to make fun of someone as a hate
crime under U.K. hate-speech legislation.
“If you look at those legislations that relate to hate
crimes, hate crime is simply about somebody being targeted in a negative way
for who they are,” she said. “And a person with a very high IQ who comes across
in a different way often is targeted in that way.”
Although Thursday’s interview certainly generated the
most buzz for Falck, it was far from the first time she’d made these claims. In
fact, her comments were based on eight years of studying discrimination against
high-IQ people, during which she said she discovered that words like these,
where “the person is being set apart as being different to others,” had left
every high-IQ person whom she’d interviewed “feeling like they’re a misfit and
they don’t belong” at least at some point in their lives. She even detailed her
findings in a book, titled Extreme Intelligence, which came out in
September. (Falck herself is a member of the high-IQ society, Mensa.)
“Slurs such as these will continue to be used unabated at
the expense of the brightest members of society unless and until legislative
action is taken,” she said at her book launch, according to the Telegraph.
“In the short space of time since racial, homophobic and
religious hate speech was banned, it is now seen by most as morally abhorrent,”
she continued. “It would be progress for British society to come to feel the
same way about hate-filled, prejudicial slurs against our high-IQ community.”
Of course, I don’t doubt Falck’s claim that people with
high intelligence have, at times, felt badly after being called “nerds.”
Despite that, though, her call to classify the use of such words as hate crimes
is nothing short of ridiculous.
I’m not a “genius,” however, I was made fun of for all
sorts of things growing up. What’s more, my giant, book-stuffed backpack and my
tendency to choose studying over socialization certainly meant that the exact
kinds of words that Falck is speaking out against were certainly among those
that I heard often. Guess what, though? I was able to get over it, and even
think that I’m a stronger person for going through what a lot of people (you
know, the ones who don’t peak as gorgeous but mean eighth-graders) go
through. Now, I’m almost proud of it . . . and I’m not alone in thinking this
way.
The other person on Falck’s Good Morning Britain
television segment — teacher, mathematician, and self-described “proud geek”
Bobby Seagull — said the same sort of thing.
“While the term geek and nerd has historically been seen
as being negative, people have now embraced the term and seen it as positive,”
he said. “I think with geeks and nerds, if you see it as a negative thing, it
could be negative, but if you embrace it, actually to be a geek means a good
thing.”
The truth is, according to Falck’s logic, a huge
percentage of speech could be classified as a hate crime. In fact, if the
standard is simply that it’s a hate crime because “somebody [is] being targeted
in a negative way for who they are” as Falck says, making fun of anyone in any
way for any reason could easily qualify. Make no mistake: Taking the step that
Falck touts as “progress” would actually be a huge step backward to
anyone who cares about humor, speech, or freedom in her country.
As the Telegraph notes, hate-speech crimes in
England and Wales can be punished with incarceration. Although being called a
word like “nerd” might hurt some people’s feelings, it’s also hardly the kind
of thing that I think too many people would consider to be an insurmountable
obstacle. It can be, as Seagull noted, taken in a flattering way; it can
also be a form of lighthearted teasing a joke — and I truly have a hard time
understanding how anyone could argue for allowing punishment by imprisonment
for using a word like that.
This whole debacle, of course, is a good example of one
reason why I often caution against the Leftist push to institute laws against
“hate speech” in the United States. After all, what does and does not
constitute “hate speech” is subjective. It means something different to every
person, and we should not be throwing people behind bars based on such a
subjective standard. Opening the speech-laws door would mean that our rights
(and the limiting of them) would depend on the subjective definitions of
whoever happened to be in power at any given time. All it would take would be
for enough people like Falck to get elected for the use of an innocuous, even
childish, word like “egghead” to become an imprisonable offense.
I myself have been the victim of some absolutely horrific
speech throughout the years; I know how bad it can make you feel — and yet, I
still believe firmly that no words directed at me could ever feel worse than
having to worry about losing my right to use my own.
No comments:
Post a Comment