The Privilege of Speech

[jducoeur]

(This doesn't seem like anything terribly surprising, but I haven't seen it said within my communities, and it applies to many of them. So some off-the-cuff thoughts, directed at myself as much as anyone.)

Our Current Political Moment is at least partly about speech: what one can and should say, what should be allowed, and how communities should respond to hateful speech. A very common response to this, particularly among older white folks, is basically, "My speech is free, and none of your business -- I should be able to say whatever I want."

That's a very normal (and very American) way of thinking, and it's true -- to a point. But there is an unspoken clause at the end of that: ", without censure". People get very huffy when you call them on their bullshit, often going so far as to (incorrectly) invoke the First Amendment and scream censorship, because Free Speech is a Right, Dammit!

And the thing is, that's just plain nonsense. Being able to speak freely and without public censure is one of the ultimate privileges.

The thing about privilege is that it's hard to see when you have it. Being an Older Affluent White Dude, it's been fascinating and educational forcing myself to step back in recent years and look at it objectively. And it's clear that this is an especially powerful privilege, and one that many people do not have.

Mind, that isn't to say that the government comes in and arrests the under-privileged for what they say. (That happens occasionally, but it's not the point.) Rather, it's all about censure. It's about being able to say whatever you want without fearing losing your job or position, or getting ostracized in the club, or being subject to hateful bullshit from anonymous trolls. Old White Dudes have a lot of freedom there -- most others don't.

What I'm observing now, in many different geek communities that I'm involved with, is that people are now being censured for bullshit that they have historically gotten away with, and that's driving some of them a bit around the bend. That reaction isn't really surprising. As with all loss of privilege, it's a bit terrifying, and for good reason: when you've spent your entire life being allowed to say whatever comes into your head, and just shrugging it off when you foul up, needing to actually think before you speak can feel like a gigantic imposition. But of course, that just brings you down to the same level that much of the world was already in -- folks further down the power ladder have always had to live with the nagging worry that they might say something that will cause them grief.

---

Now I should note: I'm still basically a First Amendment absolutist -- IMO, the government must not engage in censorship, because that's a gigantic weapon that will eventually be turned against you.

And I do think that Cancel Culture is getting a bit out of hand. When there is something you don't want to hear, it's seductively easy to try to prevent it from being said at all, so you don't have to think about it. That's also harmful: it produces echo chambers that are comfortable, easy, and false, insulated from the harsh reality that the world is complicated.

But that said: communities have the right to decide on their norms. Indeed, I think you can make a strong case that they have a responsibility to do so, and can't actually duck it. If you throw up your hands and say that members can indulge in racist/sexist speech, that's an action and it has consequences -- it means that the people who find that speech abhorrent will self-select out of your community, and you will wind up with an echo chamber of slowly-worsening badness.

Several of my clubs and communities are engaged in these arguments right now, and it's leading to a number of people storming out of them. That saddens me a bit, but I honestly think it's healthy, especially when done right. In particular, the best communities are engaging with the folks who are screwing up, and in some cases succeeding in educating them -- IMO, the biggest win. In other cases, you just have to accept that someone is too wedded to their memes, and they leave; that's a loss, but if it allows other people to join, still can be a much bigger win.

Moral of the story? If you are used to being able to say whatever the hell you want and get away with it, prepare for a shock -- much of the world (certainly much of the geekosphere) is now less willing to extend you that privilege. Learn to think first, and learn to apologize when you hurt people, because getting defensive about your privilege is no longer a clear winning proposition...

Comments

[writerkit]

I do think, though, that while we want social organizations to be able to set whatever norms they want around speech and they should be consciously considering what kind of environment they want and I agree wholeheartedly with all of this when it comes to community organizations, I would like to be harder for *workplaces* to fire people for what they say outside of work even if that makes it harder to fire the bad people-- because I also want marginalized people to be able to say whatever the heck they want on Twitter without having to worry about their livelihoods, and that's the direction we should be trying to move the needle towards.

[jducoeur]

Yep -- there isn't an easy one-size-fits-all here, and I suspect different approaches are needed for government vs. workplace vs. community.

On the work front, I'm mainly encouraged by companies starting to wake up to the idea that promoting diversity and equity are *good for business*: you wind up with a broader talent pool, happier employees, and frequently better results for the customer. Many of the same points about privilege wind up mattering there as well, *if* the company decides to make it a priority.

Sadly, though, there are lots of workplaces that still manage to get by with toxic cultures...

[elusiveat]

I'm particularly concerned about the trend of journalists not being allowed to publicly hold political positions. Recently I was on a forum where someone said that they couldn't attend the BLM protests because they are a journalist. What the hell are we doing?

[jducoeur]

I think of that as the weaponization of "objectivity", especially by the right wing.

For decades, many journalists have maintained an air of being somewhat above the fray: reporting on the facts, while not *overtly* taking sides. Of course, in most cases that was never true -- they took sides (as almost everyone does), but more subtly. But still, this idea only grew when you got Fox News and everyone was outraged about how partisan it is, so there was a lot of spluttering that that is inappropriate.

This has turned out to be a trap, though. That meme has been morphed by a lot of people into a notion that reporters need to be soulless automatons, with no opinions at all, and if you say or do anything that could be construed as an opinion, you're betraying your calling.

One of the many reasons I adore _The Economist_ is that they've never come anywhere near this trap: they actually present topics more completely than the vast majority of American media, diving deep into the nuances and compromises, while still having a passionate and outspoken (and wonderfully sensible) editorial stance. It's a much better approach.

[loosecanon]

I don't understand "Cancel culture" but I do understand shunning. I also understand people removing themselves from circumstanves they find harmful and damaging to themselves.

It's hard when so much of peoples' personal lives are lived at work, where they are expected to perform "chummy", among other circumstances.

[metageek]

I like the line (was it Randall Monroe?) that, if the only thing you can say in defense of your idea is that it’s not illegal to say, you’re not being very convincing.

[cellio]

That was Randoll Monroe, yes. I don't remember if it was the caption or the hovertext on that XKCD. I think the latter.