Podcast
Hiding Behind Free Speech
Source:
NPR: Hidden Brain
September 4, 2017
Category:
Communications
The United States goes further than many other countries in its legal protections for speech — even hate-filled speech. Some people have used free speech claims, for example, to defend the white nationalists and neo-Nazis who took to the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia several weeks ago.
In this episode, we look more closely at how people use free speech defenses, and why their true motivations might not be apparent — even to them.
Isaiah's Description:
As polarization and contrasting views have come to the forefront of public discourse so have mechanisms of defense. The free speech argument is one evoked by parties on both sides of issues, conservatives and liberals alike.
There has been much dissension on the definition of free speech and what it type of speech it encompasses. However, the most apparent issue when it comes to free speech isn't quite the definition, but the why and by whom the argument is evoked. Science has shown that free speech arguments are guided less by principle and more by biases. This is the underlying reason for inconsistent and hypocritical applications of the free speech argument from individuals on both sides of the aisle.
The research also sheds light on the reason behind the rise of prejudice speech and messaging over the past few years. A big reason is the election of President Trump in 2016. His election had an impact in two major ways. One, Trump's rhetoric surrounding minorities, immigrants, and other groups changed America's perception of acceptable speech. Two, his election validated these attitudes that many already held. "Donald Trump changed people's understanding of what America felt. The election of Donald Trump, despite all of his overt expressions of prejudice, meant that it must be OK in America to have these prejudices." (NPR)
Understanding the science presented in this podcast can be used to undermine free speech arguments. Further, it allows us to check our own biases in argumentation. In applying the free speech argument in conversations with those across the aisle, establishing a principled stance can counter biases while forcing the other person to reconsider their own position of principle. This can be a powerful tool especially in conversations surrounding race, policing, and protests.