Quick Disclaimer: I will use the term “liberal" frequently in this article. In recent years, the practical meaning of the term has morphed into an often pejorative one for a person on the political left. This is nowhere near the true meaning of the word, which I would encourage you to learn, not just for the purpose of understanding this article.
In the last decade or so, there has been a growing skepticism of the ethicality of unchecked freedom of speech. So much so that many liberals are now wondering if some form of government censorship is compatible and even beneficial to the aims of a just liberal society.
Countries, including the United Kingdom, France and Germany, all championed for their advancement and practice of liberalism (with a few hiccups along the way). All of these nations subsequently enacted national laws censoring speech. These laws are no small matters or mere technicalities, with many punishable by fines and prison time akin to any other crime.
To put it simply, these laws are absurd for two major reasons: One, government censorship is entirely incompatible with the basic liberal principles of inherent human equality and liberty. Two, government censorship is counterintuitive even to the illiberal ends to which it is enacted when “balanced” with liberal legislation and institutions.
The typical justification for government censorship in liberal societies is that it can be used to prevent the spread of “hate,” “bigotry” or otherwise “dangerous” speech. From here on out, I will generally refer to this genre of undesired speech as “hate speech.”
This justification sounds reasonable on the surface. There is speech that harms others; therefore, we can and should use the power of the government to prevent and punish it. But let’s think this through. The next crucial question to be answered is what exactly is hate speech, and who gets to define it?
Hate speech is a social construct, meaning its definition ultimately stems from a person or entity’s subjective interpretation of it. If this is the case, is any one entity justified in ultimately defining hate speech? No, because such a justification is necessarily rooted in the inherent superiority of certain opinions.
The censor’s justification as to why certain speech ought to be censored is because it is “hate speech,” and the justification for why the censor’s subjective definition of “hate speech” is valid is because they aren’t a “hateful person.”
Do you see the problem? The justification for the censorship is contained within the premise itself.
In logic, this fallacy is called “begging the question.” In reality, in order for a government to protect the principle that individuals are made equal under the law, no speech that is not directly inciting physical violence under a strict legal definition, no matter how hateful, offensive or dangerous another person perceives it, can be automatically and unquestionably concluded as inferior and thus illegal.
When this principle is broken via government censorship, such a government shifts from defending the sovereignty and lawful equality of the individuals it governs to enforcing a universal standard of morality, the epitome of illiberalism. Our Founding Fathers, to our great privilege, deeply understood this principle and enshrined an unequivocal right to freedom of speech in our Constitution, a crucial aspect of our country’s pursuit of justice.
Even if I have convinced you of censorship's absurdity in principle, you may still argue that, in the grand scheme of things, government censorship is ultimately for the greater good if it prevents the most unhinged variants of speech; however, the lessons of history and our present society indicate the opposite.
The most destructive ideas thrive in the shadow of a perceived enemy: The Nazi regime fed off the repressed humiliation of the German people following World War One; Islamic terrorism around the turn of the 21st century was catalyzed by American military intervention in the Muslim world; and oppressive Communist regimes in the 20th century were emboldened, not disheartened, by Western meddling, which gave them an easy enemy behind which to rally.
An eerily similar story is taking place with regards to European governmental censorship today, which is primarily an attempt to prevent the recurrence of the very events mentioned in the previous paragraph.
No generation has witnessed a more frequent and intense condemnation of the actions of Nazi Germany than Generation Z, yet there is an epidemic of fascism among my fellow young men. I speak with experience when I say we do not take very kindly to being told what to believe, and it is no surprise that, in our maturity, so many of us are flirting with the one ideology universally condemned in our upbringing. Put simply, half-hearted government censorship popularizes and intensifies the very ideas it seeks to contain.
Finally, there is one question begging to be heard: If half-hearted censorship is absurd and counterproductive, what about decisive, merciless censorship?
Powerful, authoritarian countries, such as the People’s Republic of China, that are less squeamish about their authoritarian nature do realize the “benefits” of effective censorship. The difference is that their goal is not individual freedom or equality but collective, Identitarian power and victory.
I have many criticisms of the PRC; hypocrisy is not one of them. The same cannot be said for the countries I mentioned in the introduction. These nations occupy a fragile middle ground where the liberty of the individual is still desired and nominally protected but limited when it conflicts with (an absurd idea of) the “greater good,” the political equivalent of trying to “have your cake and eat it too.”
I do not use the phrase “begging to be heard” lightly. All societies, including our own, are characterized by a fleeting and endless search for meaning, stability and security. If we, as American liberals, do not put in the effort to understand and defend the principles that make our country uniquely great, including the freedom of speech, something else will replace it.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
