Orwell Was Only 35 Years Too Pessimistic

Donetsk, Ukraine, 2010, By Борис У. - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10125824

A piece in the UK’s Guardian argues that free speech is not under assault. “It just suits bigots and boors to suggest so.”

Their argument, point by point:

1. Free speech is not under assault, because assaults on free speech are frequently featured in the media.

If free speech were under assault, we would not hear about it, right? Because reports of it would themselves be suppressed. Right?

But, by the same token, if free speech were not under assault, there would of course not be media stories of it being under assault.

So this same evidence proves free speech both is and is not under assault.

Common sense conclusion: free speech is under assault, but is not (yet?) entirely suppressed.

2. Surveys show most students do not want to silence dissenting opinions.

This does not show that there is no censorship; it shows that censorship does not have majority support. Governments and authorities censor; the average citizen has no such power. Nor is a majority required to initiate a mob action like shouting down dissenting opinions.

3. Shouting down is only limited to a number of topics. “They are unlikely to turn their sights, say, to physics, economics or music.”

This would have been equally true of Nazi Germany or Maoist China. This is necessarily so: only subjects with political implications are likely to be censored. Unfortunately, the left also declared a generation or two ago that “the personal is political,” making almost every subject political. Recent bouts of censorship have concentrated on knitting, computer gaming, using the “OK” hand sign, drinking milk, and wearing red baseball caps.

4. Not all claims of censorship are legitimate.

This is inevitably so, given human nature. Not all charges of murder are legitimate either. This does not prove there are no murders.

5. It is okay in principle to censor someone for being impolite.

The only speech that ever needs to be protected is speech that is going to violate authority or social norms. Nobody censors people for agreeing with them. And what authority has the right to decide without discussion what is and is not polite?

6. “Some debates should be shut down.” Specifically, if an argument has been won, nobody should be allowed any longer to dissent.

This is self-evidently false. The proof that a debate has been won is that there are no longer any dissenting views being expressed. In this case, there is no call for censorship. Even were voices raised insisting that the Earth were flat, for example, or that Martians have visited, there would be no lobby to silence such voices. Nobody would be agitated to hear such views.

If censorship is happening, or is being called for, on a particular topic, it is proof positive of the opposite: that this argument is not over. Or rather, that it is indeed over, and has been lost: it will always be the losers who demand censorship. The winners will be eager to debate further.

7. “The trouble with the free speech defence is that it works to shut down any argument against it.”

In other words, to favour free speech is to oppose free speech. To oppose free speech is to be in favour of free speech. Speaking prevents others from speaking.

Orwell saw all of this coming. “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.”