Devil’s advocate

If Facebook is any indication, it looks like some of us need a refresher course in what it means to have a flourishing marketplace of ideas.\nThe group “Bordering on Hate Speech” has 339 members and counting. This group, on the face, seems like a noble idea, people coming together to express their outrage against a writer that the group believes holds sadly ignorant views on gender roles and the family. It even seemed a good idea at the time the offending piece, which was published in the IDS\nWhat appealed to me was a line in the group’s description: “(The writer) is entitled to his opinion, but we’re also entitled to discredit him in as many ways as possible.”\nEncapsulated in that sentiment is the power of an open marketplace of ideas: battling ideas with other ideas, and all ideas are welcome. It’s a shame they go on to undermine this rational sentiment by advocating violence as a means of communicating their ideas to the writer in question.\nWithin the marketplace-of-ideas philosophy, all ideas, whether they be positive or offensive, truth or falsity, must be allowed to enter the arena of discourse. The drama of argument and dynamic public discourse keeps the wellspring of thought from stagnation. It is through discourse, not violence or intimidation, that the beauty and unity of humanity is often revealed.\nThe flooding of the Jordan River Forum with eloquent letters of rebuttal attempting to logically prove the idiocy of bigotry, and the diverse groups of people coming out in solidarity against these hurtful ideas, are the correct ways to shut down hate. And besides, it’s more fun to prove someone wrong than to merely shut him up.\nThe irony is that people who are screaming for tolerance are now being intolerant. By advocating violence against a writer and economic punishment to the outlet that gave the offensive opinions voice, they are guilty of attempting to censor the marketplace of ideas through intimidation and manipulation.\nThey are guilty of trying to prescribe thought, not merely through persuasive arguments (which do exist on the message boards, to be certain), but through a childish rallying cry to “kick him in the nuts” and an all-too-serious plan of financially crippling the outlet in question. Guess what: If you cripple the outlet, the public forum for discourse goes away, and that opportunity to persuade away hate goes with it.\nThough it is a heinous and regrettable reality that disgusting, dehumanizing points of view exist in our community, we cannot fall into the trap of wanting to squash those opinions because we find them offensive. The protection of thought must be absolute to be effective. Once we facilitate the censorship of ideas – even under the noble intention of quelling perceived hate – the marketplace of ideas suffers, and none of us are necessarily free.\nTo paraphrase former Chief Justice William Rehnquist from his opinion in the landmark case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: It is in protecting the most base and offensive opinions that we ensure the protection of all.