Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture, from a Moral Libertarian perspective. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
We Need to Look At Anti Free Speech Theories | TaraElla News
Welcome to TaraElla News, where we examine the latest political and cultural news from the perspective of upholding classical liberal values like individual freedom, equal opportunity and free speech. TaraElla News is released on most days of the week, and each episode is distributed to either the TaraElla Politics channel or the TaraElla Culture channel, subscribe if you're interested.
Today, I want to respond to a recent PragerU video titled Hate Speech Doesn't Exist. Firstly, I have very mixed feelings about Dennis Prager and PragerU, but they are staunchly pro-free speech, and I will give them that. However, I believe we win arguments by being honest and rational. I think it's an objective truth that hate speech is a thing. What we should argue is that there shouldn't be laws against free speech, and that would have to mean no laws against any speech.
The video itself basically tells us what we already know. You know, trigger warnings, microaggressions, disinviting speakers, college students who prefer freedom from speech over freedom of speech, all things we have been familiar with since at least 2015. In other words, the video doesn't cover any new ground. Therefore, you would have to ask, why would someone be making this video in 2019? It's because free speech still isn't winning. Unfortunately, outlets like PragerU generally love to preach to the converted, and tend to simplify and dichotomize everything. Another example is their recent video on the death penalty, where the subject was treated with absolutely no nuance.
But let's return to free speech. Many of us continue to support free speech as a key pillar of classical liberalism, believing that the free market of ideas will bring truth and rationality. We've also been making the argument that suppressing speech doesn't improve things for anyone. We've been going public with our objections to so-called safe speech, microaggression theory, and the de-platforming of speakers for several years now, and let's face it, we haven't been making any progress at all. The reason is because we haven't made a dent in the underlying theory justifying these phenomenon. Free speech activists generally haven't been big on theory. The PragerU video only mentioned academic theory once, in connection with microaggressions. But the fact is, critical theory, and in particular postmodern critical theory, is the backbone of the anti-free speech movement. In other words, we can save free speech, if we smash the critical theory worldview with classical liberal arguments.
Basically, all anti-free speech arguments are ultimately rooted in the idea that discourse itself is power. This draws heavily on postmodern critical theory thinkers like Foucault, but also has deeper roots in the critical theory tradition, where it is assumed that there are culturally-based systems of oppression everywhere. The assumption of culturally-based systems of oppression is baked right into the method. It's not hard to see how this would lead to discourse being power, and from there to speech itself being tools of oppression, and even speech itself being violent. Of course, the best antidote to this bleak worldview of humanity is to embrace classical liberal values like the free market of ideas, and its potential to better humanity both morally and pragmatically. Where critical theory is negative about humanity, classical liberalism is very positive. Where postmodern critical theorists see individuals as being defined by external forces, classical liberals see individuals as having lots of agency.
