Free speech and human idiocy

At times, reading headlines can be dangerous to one’s sanity.

The sheer number of things said in this day and age is incredible — and it’s no surprise that many of those things are simply ignorant, hateful or misinformed.  

Take a half hour out of your day to peruse the cyber-sphere, and you’ll see all kinds of xenophobic and homophobic sentiments rear their ugly heads.

People will also see the usual number of suspects with no training in economics spouting what they’re sure is the best advice for dragging us out of a recession they don’t understand.

It can be a little overwhelming and maybe even bring you close to considering curbing certain laws of free speech when the consequences for those listening become so palpable.  

When we hear stories of funerals picketed and lives ruined by the cruelty of small factions, it’s easy to say that something must be done to prevent it from happening again.

And yet, I personally find it very hard to come to the conclusion that prevention should be mandated in the form of law, especially given the political repercussions of such laws, both in our own history and in the world today.

Just this week, I came across an interesting article in the Nieman Report’s edition about foreign reporting describing the joy, hilarity and hardship of teaching journalism in post-Soviet bloc countries.

Despite their enthusiasm, students are often bewildered by the notion that governments can be criticized and thoughts contrary to public opinion voiced.  

As I read, I found myself thinking about what a unique experience it is to grow up with a media that fosters individual opinion — to be able to measure what you might say about politics based on legitimacy and strength of argument rather than legal consequences.

Despite its familiarity, that is no small thing.

And yes, perhaps it allows for and even creates the mass of opinion that is not always sensible and certainly not always well thought out or rationally defensible.

But if I’m putting bigotry and idiocy on the scale against freedom of expression as a whole, freedom of expression always wins.

Maybe it’s too big of a dose of optimism in today’s fashionably fatalistic world, but I think costs and benefits should be weighed before hasty conclusions are reached about the dangers of letting people speak their minds.

If listening to stupidity and hatred is the price I have to pay to get to have a dialogue with that small percentage of people whose ideas can make a positive difference, I’m willing to pay it.  

And when the consequences are more dire than just a bad day, that doesn’t change the fact that the alternative of inhibited free speech is more dangerous.

If anything, maybe we should use this lovely free speech that we have to brainstorm original solutions that don’t involve revoking rights.


E-mail: cmcglass@indiana.edu