On the human cost of "free speech"
Feb. 22nd, 2009 04:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tahnanThis post was sparked by a comment elsewhere in which S said "Freedom of speech and all that jazz" as a defense of a post by J that sparked an extended argument in J's LJ. Rather than post extensively in J's comments, I'll post it here. I fear I'm going to have to make some specific reference to J's original thread, but I'm not linking to it, so you'll just have to infer.
The following are some useful facts to remember about freedom of speech:
1. Freedom of speech is a legal defense, not a moral one. When J made her original post, no one attempted to violate her freedom of speech: no one called the police or otherwise took non-verbal action against her. Nor did anyone say "You aren't permitted to say that!" J's right to make her statement was never in doubt. The corrolary of the legal-vs.-moral fact is, to paraphrase Miss Manners, not everything permitted is obligatory. Just because one has the right to free speech does not mean one must, or even should, say everything one thinks at every moment.
2. Speech is an action. The philosopher J.L. Austin coined the term "speech act" for this very reason: every instance of saying (including writing) is an act, which in addition to its semantic content ("locutionary act") has a particular force ("illocutionary act") such as asking, ordering, requesting, warning, informing; and also has further effects ("perlocutionary act"). And even in a legal sense, while you cannot be punished in America for the content of your words, you can be punished for your illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. An example of the former is "incitement": if your uttering a sentence is also an order to riot, you can be held responsible for that act. An example of the latter is the classic "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre": even though the content of your speech is protected ("there is a fire in here") and there was nothing illegal about your illocutionary act ("I warn you that there is a fire in here"—inappropriate when there is no fire, but legal), you can be held responsible for the consequences of your action.
J neither incited to riot nor shouted "Fire" (though again, no one has suggested a legal offense). Nevertheless, her speech—free though she may be to say it—has consequences, just like any other action she takes. She, like any other student, is free to take the action of never turning in a homework assignment, but that act has consequences (e.g., her professor may fail her). Similarly, she is free to take the action of saying "I cannot believe that some people are so babaric that they believe X"—but there are consequences, and one of them is that people who believe X may infer "She thinks I am stupid and barbaric" and may then not wish to speak to her.
Let me stress, too, another lesson from the study of linguistic pragmatics: some implications of the speaker may be detachable from the particular form of the utterance. J's opinion being "X is wrong", she could have expressed it in a number of ways: she can say "I believe X is wrong", "I'd never do X", "I don't think anyone should do X", "Only barbaric idiots would do X", and so on, and while they may in some sense carry the same message (J believes X is wrong), they will have different effects on her readers. A sizeable portion of the negative reaction to J's post was not to the content of her message (though there was plenty of that, to be sure), but to the way in which it was communicated—to the action, not the content.
As a final side note to S, though there are a few other people reading who might do well to be reminded: "overreact" is rarely acceptable in civil discourse. It's inherently dismissive of the feelings of others to tell them that they've overreacted.
The following are some useful facts to remember about freedom of speech:
1. Freedom of speech is a legal defense, not a moral one. When J made her original post, no one attempted to violate her freedom of speech: no one called the police or otherwise took non-verbal action against her. Nor did anyone say "You aren't permitted to say that!" J's right to make her statement was never in doubt. The corrolary of the legal-vs.-moral fact is, to paraphrase Miss Manners, not everything permitted is obligatory. Just because one has the right to free speech does not mean one must, or even should, say everything one thinks at every moment.
2. Speech is an action. The philosopher J.L. Austin coined the term "speech act" for this very reason: every instance of saying (including writing) is an act, which in addition to its semantic content ("locutionary act") has a particular force ("illocutionary act") such as asking, ordering, requesting, warning, informing; and also has further effects ("perlocutionary act"). And even in a legal sense, while you cannot be punished in America for the content of your words, you can be punished for your illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. An example of the former is "incitement": if your uttering a sentence is also an order to riot, you can be held responsible for that act. An example of the latter is the classic "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre": even though the content of your speech is protected ("there is a fire in here") and there was nothing illegal about your illocutionary act ("I warn you that there is a fire in here"—inappropriate when there is no fire, but legal), you can be held responsible for the consequences of your action.
J neither incited to riot nor shouted "Fire" (though again, no one has suggested a legal offense). Nevertheless, her speech—free though she may be to say it—has consequences, just like any other action she takes. She, like any other student, is free to take the action of never turning in a homework assignment, but that act has consequences (e.g., her professor may fail her). Similarly, she is free to take the action of saying "I cannot believe that some people are so babaric that they believe X"—but there are consequences, and one of them is that people who believe X may infer "She thinks I am stupid and barbaric" and may then not wish to speak to her.
Let me stress, too, another lesson from the study of linguistic pragmatics: some implications of the speaker may be detachable from the particular form of the utterance. J's opinion being "X is wrong", she could have expressed it in a number of ways: she can say "I believe X is wrong", "I'd never do X", "I don't think anyone should do X", "Only barbaric idiots would do X", and so on, and while they may in some sense carry the same message (J believes X is wrong), they will have different effects on her readers. A sizeable portion of the negative reaction to J's post was not to the content of her message (though there was plenty of that, to be sure), but to the way in which it was communicated—to the action, not the content.
As a final side note to S, though there are a few other people reading who might do well to be reminded: "overreact" is rarely acceptable in civil discourse. It's inherently dismissive of the feelings of others to tell them that they've overreacted.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-22 10:06 am (UTC)http://ericejohnson.typepad.com/pixelization/2008/09/tropic-thunder.html
:)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-22 01:24 pm (UTC)One of Stephen Fry's blog posts from a ways back showed surprise at the lack of Americans' ability to debate things without taking personal offense, or rather that they find others' criticism of a belief to be equal to a criticism of themselves... they are unable to separate the two. I'm afraid I resemble that remark, myself, more than I care to admit.
I'm glad you took the time to write this up. Thank you.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-22 05:23 pm (UTC)When describing ourselves, it is often done in terms of profession (I am a student/teacher/doctor/sanitation engineer/etc) and of belief (I am a Christian/Muslim/Athiest/Muppet Worshipper/etc). It's rare that the first response is something along the lines of 'I am compassionate.' or something similar. So when we (the collective American Persona 'we') start to debate something - especially something about which we are passionate - it becomes difficult to not react to someone criticizing our debate as if they are criticizing our self. Even if that was not their intent, and even if we are not our topic.
Having not lived in other countries, I don't know if they are better at separating themselves from their beliefs as being definitive of self. Maybe they've just had more exposure to formal debate/dialogue training so that they are aware that, at its base, a criticism of topic is not necessarily a criticism of self. Of course, that implies that the one doing the criticizing also has the exposure and training that their criticism is, in fact, a critique of topic rather than self.
If any of that makes sense.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-22 03:05 pm (UTC)However, I may disagree with you on your very last point, the one about 'overreact'. I say may because I'm not certain whether you were talking narrowly about the word itself, or about the sentiment in general. It may also depend on whether the people involved are strangers or acquaintances. If I tell a stranger 'you're overreacting', the only real sense it can have is 'you are reacting more strongly than you should; your feelings about this are wrong'...or MAYBE, if carefully phrased 'you are reacting to this more strongly than I would and I don't understand why'.
When speaking to someone you know, however, there's also: 'your reaction to this seems out of character for you; are you certain that that there aren't other factors influencing your reaction which have nothing to do with the situation at hand?' There /are/ times when it's productive to (politely) suggest that someone re-examine their reaction to be certain it's really the subject at hand that's RESPONSIBLE for their feelings.
(Rather than, for instance, not having eaten all day, not having slept well the night before, some unrelated terrible thing that happened earlier in the day which has left them raw...)
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-23 06:06 am (UTC)