There is No Justice Without Free Speech | A Reasonable Alternative

Around 4 or 5 years ago, I became increasingly frustrated at how 'the left' was changing. There was a rapid increase in identity politics and a pro-conflict, us-vs-them orientation, and there was a rapid drop in respect for liberal norms like free speech, freedom of conscience and so on. There was also increasing hostility between those who considered themselves 'left', and those who considered themselves 'libertarian'. These things meant that, overall, the Left now felt like a collectivist, group over individual, zero-sum political faction, that was also driven by theoretical concerns rather than practical needs.

To put it simply, a faction within the far-left is essentially promoting a version of justice that doesn't include, and doesn't depend on, respect for free speech. Now, this vision of 'justice without freedom' is indeed very different from what we're used to: traditionally, social justice started with being aware of the reality of disadvantaged lives, and we hear about that reality through free speech and the marketplace of ideas. We listen, and we gain an understanding that there are things that need to be fixed. Thus free speech was the first and foremost necessary condition for social justice. Moreover, sometimes there are competing demands from different stakeholders in society, and we need to listen to all of them to come up with a solution that respects the needs of everyone. Again, free speech is important for this process. This is why, at least traditionally, we could say that there can't be social justice without free speech.

On the other hand, what we're seeing from the postmodern left is a new version of justice that is derived, not from listening to real life voices out there, but from philosophical theory. In this worldview, justice is simply what the theory demands, and it is going to be imposed on everyone, whether they like it or not. Speech is allowed only if it is not considered oppressive or repressive under their philosophical theory, in line with the spirit of Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance. The drive to bring about theoretical justice, including through the suppression of free speech if necessary, has led to widespread chaos, frustration and misunderstanding, which in turn has fueled the growth of scarily authoritarian reactionary movements, but they don't seem to care. These people seem to believe that the realization of the goals of their philosophical theory would bring about utopia. This allows them to disregard the negative effects their actions are having in the here and now. In other words, to bring about theoretical justice, they are willing to throw practical justice under the bus.

This is why, if you are for practical justice, you need to take a stand against theoretical justice. The two don't seem to be compatible at all! Next time, if someone says that something is required for social justice, make sure to think about whether they are talking about practical justice or theoretical justice. A good test would be, does this improve things in the real world? And finally, remember that real justice always requires the existence of free speech. A philosophy that promises justice while suppressing free speech on a large scale is not to be trusted.