@hunt “My observation is that everybody, left or right, likes free speech until they don’t.”
I think that is a tautology as stated. However, it is not true that everybody opposes free speech. My DD brought home a religious text that is not that one that we are with. It had been given to her by a well intended classmate, and she asked me what she should do with it. I told her that I do not believe that the text is true and the best way for her to know that for herself was not to take my word for it, but rather to read it and use her own critical thinking skills. I tell them that they should think for themselves and not just believe what they are told.
@ Hunt “On the other hand, I don’t think that the freedom to publish a particular kind of speech is, in itself, a moral justification for publishing it. Decent people might reasonably refrain from certain kinds of speech because it would offend others–absent some countervailing reason to publish it. The cartoon case is hard, though–should we publish the cartoons just to show that nobody can control speech through threats?”
I am not saying that the freedom to publish is a moral justification. I am not a fan of these cartoons. I am however, saying that anyone should have the right to do so, and trying to prevent them from being published because it is hate speech or because someone might be offended or violent is not good enough to give up our freedom of speech. It seems to me that the argument some Muslim groups give that this is too offensive to be allowed is the same very same argument that conservative Christians have used to argue that other religions (like Islam) should not be allowed. They say that this is a predominantly Christian nation and Islam is offensive to conservatives Christians, and some of them believe that Allah is satan, and therefore, it should be banned. So it seems to me, that ironically, the law that these groups do not like, is the same law that protects their rights and all of our rights.
Additionally, if we are so worried about the fact that allowing free speech that will lead to people being killed, then why don’t we ban the anti-vaccine speech or the anti-global warming speech. That is the free speech that ultimately kills a lot of people. Yet, no one is arguing that.
The key is that free speech does not mean speech we all agree with. Free speech means the right to speech that others do not agree with. It is the right of MLK to say things offensive to some, and the right of scientists (like Galileo) to say things that are offensive to some. It is the right of homophobes to argue against gay rights, and Islamophobes to argue against Islam. Let them speak. The fastest way for someone to discover that homophobes and Islamophobes have nothing worthwhile to say is to listen to them.
If we do not defend free speech rights for unpopular positions, then there is no free speech. This is especially true on college campuses where free speech has always meant open dialogue and the ability to put forward any idea, or the ability to challenge any idea freely and openly. These discussions and exchanges matter and the idea that you win arguments by providing facts and reason and no by preventing the other person from speaking matters.
To be clear, arguing for free speech is in no way backing hate speech. There is a big difference between opposing a group and threatening to physically harm members of that group or suggesting that other people should physically harm members of that group.That is not acceptable either.