Why does the free speech debate make us so angry? | | Group

Men January 2015, Two members of al-Qaida shot the photographers on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo in retaliation for their publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. In the following weeks, my Facebook page split in two. Many of my childhood friends (I grew up in France and went to school near Paris) expressed their sadness at the death of artists they had known for years, their anger at religious extremism and their fear at the end of free speech.

Meanwhile, many of my British and American academic friends, who were discovering Charlie Hebdo and its obscene cartoons for the first time, were worried about the criticism of French Muslims and questioned the wisdom of publishing those pictures in the first place; one also posted a link to a blog that described the slain artists as “racists”.

I was happy in a way that there was little difference between the two groups of friends. Everyone would have seen some of the ideas expressed by the other side – and therefore the people who express them – as unpleasant and unethical. Two groups of people who, in the past week, shared the same memes and were amused or annoyed by the same things, turned out to be two very different groups that seem unrelated. I spent a lot of time writing bitter comments on various friends’ posts, trying to explain where I stood on all of them – and then deleting them. They didn’t seem to help. Instead, I took the phone, which worked better. Soon after, I quit Facebook. And, since I am an anthropologist, I started a research project to find out what is going on.

The discussion of freedom seems to be about abstract principles and rules: what should be allowed? When will it cross? Do we need more or less regulation? This disagreement is real – but it doesn’t explain why we are so angry, frustrated and divided about free speech. In fact, the freedom wars of recent years are not just about the law – it’s about being a good person. Notice how such arguments are filled with images of “types” of people: snowflakes, trolls, culture warriors, edgelords, bigots, crybullies, incels and so on. At the root of these conflicts is a blatant judgment of character: what kind of person wants to control another person’s speech? What kind of person doesn’t care about how their words affect others?

This is what philosophers call “morality”. Arguments about freedom of speech are arguments about moral values ​​- honesty, courage, patience, generosity, care – and the behavior of the people who promote them. That’s what the Facebook post asks bluntly: are you the type of person who stands by murdered photographers, even if you don’t like what they took? Are you the type of person who braves the crowd to speak out against injustice? That’s why it all feels so personal – disrupting relationships, dividing families, leading to fiery or quiet lines.

In the case of Europe and the US, almost everyone seems to agree that freedom of speech is a good thing. Yet we find people struggling with different visions of what kind of (ideal) free speech person is. I would argue that three such visions have become the most popular: the first one portrays the free speaker as a thoughtful citizen, measured in sharing ideas – perhaps an informant on Question Time, a writer on a paper board, a citizen at a town hall meeting. Second, the liberal speaker is a transgressor of rules and traditions – think of satirical cartoons like Piss Christ and Andres Serranoor Mona Lisa’s “Soup”. and climate activists. A third sees the free speech as a brave and honorable person standing up for the truth – classically, whistleblowers like Edward Snowden or Li Wenliangthe Chinese doctor whose WeChat posts alerted the world to Covid-19.

Sometimes a person can be cast as all three at the same time. Think about it Salman Rushdiearguing in measured terms, inconsistent with freedom of expression, passionately criticizing prohibition, and standing up for freedom of speech at the risk of one’s life. Very controversial, this is how supporters of Charlie Hebdo saw the magazine after the shooting: Charlie stood for intellectual commitment, for the world against religion and religious extremism openly; his servants mocked the religious authorities and secular authorities; and they did all this, selflessly and courageously, risking their lives. Critics protested this, of course – for them, Charlie Hebdo was not moderate, or aimed at the powerful, or volunteers. In some cases, the three characters of the free speaker are at odds with each other: the critic shouts more passionately from the barriers than all reason; the rational citizen is calmly distinguishing the most cherished beliefs of the activist; bold truth-tellers are humiliating and shocking respectable citizens.

Once we see free speech debates as moral and ethical debates rather than rules and principles, we can understand why people can argue against free speech one minute, and criticize their opponents for what they say the next. Examples are all around us, including Maga activists doing rituals after the shooting Charlie Kirkor progressives who have in the past defended campus language critical of anti-Palestinian opposition. This is often attributed to “double standards”, confusion or dishonesty. But if you start from the character, a different picture emerges. Each of our three “nations” genuinely defends freedom of speech, but each has valid reasons for wanting to remain silent. A reasonable citizen accepts the limits of speech through law, copyright or culture; an entertainer who feels that he has power must be shut down to allow the weak to speak; A respectable truth-teller wants to be respected for their values ​​and retaliate by insulting them or their friends.

Of course, these archetypal speakers are fictional. But they are already more three-dimensional than the caricatures we started with (snowman, troll, etc.). The purpose of the concept of social justice is not to change your opinion on the issue of freedom or to challenge your beliefs – it is to give you a language in which you can clearly see the beliefs of the other side, and identify what they are, which is shared by both.l

No single twisted free speech argument can stop the push and pull of our current debates. Instead, we need to commit to a free speech that is not so different that it is tight, like a rope woven with many strands; one that has a place, each in its place, because it is a good idea, a burning passion and a brave loyalty.

Matei Candia is a professor at the University of Cambridge and an author Because, Carnival is Honor: An Anthropology of Free Speech (Give it away).

Another reading

What is Free Speech? by Fara Dabhoiwala (Penguin, £14.99)

Righteous Thoughts by Jonathan Haidt (Penguin, £14.99)

The Problem of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (Penguin, £10.99)