[quote=“Mozart, post:10, topic:330, full:true”]If we let people say what they like, even if it incites hatred and violence, how can we ensure that people don’t harm others as a result?
[/quote]
I’ll try to answer your question.
Even free speech absolutists support laws against direct threats and attempts to incite physical harm
against an individual. These are rightly treated as assault and to call them “opinion” or “speech” is a category error. But placing censorship alongside assault laws and treating them as interchangeable is another category error. Abolishing section 18C in no way opens the path to violence; laws against threats and incitement were there long before the Racial Discrimination Act was ever introduced.
When it comes to intolerance - that’s an aspect of human nature. Humans aren’t about “good and evil”: it’s more like tribalism vs empathy. We can see those traits elsewhere in our evolutionary line: chimpanzees can be remarkably compassionate towards hurt and injured members of their own tribe, but they will beat to death members of other tribes for no apparent reason at all. Empathy is always good. Tribalism can channel into patriotism, team sports, and constructive competition at its positive end, and racism, religious conflict, and misogyny in its darker moments.
You curb harm by encouraging empathy and understanding and contact between people. Multiculturalism is good for this. So is education (with the obvious exception of tribal institutions like faith schools). But you can’t have education without a contest of ideas. The mistake of censorship advocates is that they put “hate speech” (however they define it) on a pedestal as some all-powerful force that creates harm and violence. The speech that responds to hate speech is regarded in the opposite terms: so weak and powerless that only censorship can balance the scales.
The exact opposite is true, though. The reason racism and so on has been pushed to the fringe is that it lost the battle of ideas. The counter-speech was stronger, more sensible, more unifying than the hate-speech. Stopping the debate now and martyring the hater side in their hour of defeat is counter-productive in the extreme. Nothing does more for a hate speaker’s standing and esprit-d-corps than a dose of persecution from the state.
So, on the question of should “we” let people say what they like. Obviously we should, because the attempt to gag them is so counter-productive. The Weimar Republic was a morass of hate speech laws. The early forerunners of the Nazi movement were people who faced public censorship and grouped together to push back. Pushing filth out of sight only makes it fouler and stronger. We should be letting this stuff out in the sun where it can be exposed. This is an applied form of the “education” we all apparently support. Not just the education of the hate speakers, but of the public itself, which should be treated like adults, permitted to see the debate and make up its own mind.
Censorship infantilises, and de-educates. It’s not an enabler of dignity, but of indignity. We have to believe that a state can liberate people from the “oppression” of hostile speech by using a tool which has contributed to every kind of state oppression in history. We have to believe that bad ideas can be defeated by treating them as all-powerful, and showing that we fear them. We have to believe that the historical changes in social norms will come to a halt and the populist banning of ideas will never come back to bite us.
With so much unreason in the censorship agenda it’s not surprising that GetUp and their fellow travellers seriously believe that opposing censorship equates to supporting the ideas being censored. That kind of mental incapacity will only get worse the longer we rely on the state to make our arguments for us and hide from our obligation to engage and debate. Censorship is a direct challenge to the process of educating ourselves out of racism.
As some have noted, there’s not much practically at stake in the fight over 18C. What is at stake for us though is whether or not we are a censorship-supporting party. That is a precedent and philosophical direction that is really going to matter in the future, because the challenges to free speech never stop.