Save Free Speech — Neuter It!

When NPR organized a debate on the limits of free speech, the broadcaster had no trouble finding three 'experts' to argue that hurtful speech must not be allowed. Note their names: David Cesarani, a research professor in history at Royal Holloway, University of London; Mari Matsuda, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center; and Daisy Khan, the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement.

Thankfully, they were no match for the participants who defended the idea that "freedom of expression must include the license to offend." Among them were Philip Gourevitch, the editor of the Paris Review, and Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens.

Gourevitch noted that Cesarani had argued that the Internet was imperiling freedom of speech because it was awash with bigotry and that [in Cesarani's words] "all that decent people can do is agree to reasonable limits on what can be said and set down legal markers in an attempt to preserve a democratic, civilized and tolerant society."

That's rich, isn't it? The Internet is "imperiling freedom of speech" because of the bigotry that's on it — so to ensure free speech, we must be prepared to do away with it.

"Who gives him the right to set up a chair in the antechambers of my mind and judge what I'm allowed to say and what I'm allowed to think?" Gourevitch replied.

He could have been a tad less hoity-toity about it ("the antechambers of my mind"? Dude, what the fuck?), but at least Gourevitch put his finger precisely on the key issue.

Hitchens' arguments also sounded this theme."Who will you appoint?" Hitchens asked the three speakers opposing the motion. "Who will be the one who says, 'I know exactly where the limits should be, I know how far you can go and I know when you've gone too far, and I'll decide that?' Who do you think, who do you know, who have you heard of, who have you read about in history to whom you'd give that job?"

That argument helped convince the fence-sitters:

The audience at the debate voted once before the debate started and once during closing statements. At the beginning, a large majority favored the motion, "Freedom of expression must include the license to offend": 177 favored the motion, 25 opposed it and 24 were unsure. At the end of the debate, support of the motion increased to 201; only 39 opposed.

Story here: audio of the whole debate here.

Comments

[Eion]

Those numbers don't add up.
177+25+24 = 226 people before the debate
201+39 = 240 people after the debate
226 < 240
So, either there were some abstentions initially, or some people came in during the debate... or NPR can't do simple maths.

Pedantic, I know, but it hardly fills me with confidence in NPR's 'reporting'.

[Jeff The Poustman]

Good eye, Eion.