A neighbor of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool, active Democrat, mentioned during a recent discussion that people don’t understand that freedom of speech isn’t absolute. His is a valid observation on its face, but as always, context and particulars matter. He wasn’t referring to the standard carveouts to the First Amendment e.g. slander, libel, false witness, inciting to riot, and so forth. His assertion was centered on bigoted or racist speech. In particular, he doesn’t believe someone should have the right or liberty to walk up to someone else and call him by some offensive epithet. We delved into a side discussion about assault at that point, but my takeaway from the conversation was the glee with which he declared that the First Amendment wasn’t absolute. He was actually happy to aver that rights and liberties are and should be constrained by government, and to believe that those who say the wrong things should be punished.
Conversations of this sort, between libertarians like me and statists like my neighbor, are rarely productive. The difference in worldview and regarding the role of the state in our lives is so profound, so rooted in stark philosophical disparity, that there’s very little upon which to build commonality. This is simply how things are, and it’s disheartening for lovers of liberty. The emotional angle that I witnessed in this exchange is even more disheartening. Happiness in the state’s ability to coerce behavior speaks volumes about the statist mindset. It reflects an utter lack of respect for others’ beliefs or viewpoints. It implies a desire to subordinate large chunks of the nation’s populace, to create a tiered society that consists of those whose beliefs align with what the state decrees is permissible or proper, and those who aren’t allowed to voice their dissenting beliefs.
The infringements on liberty will always be presented in “common-sense” terms. After all, it’s hard to defend a racist who wants to fire N-bombs at black people. However, once we crack that nut, once we accept that the government can penalize someone merely for saying certain things, we have abandoned a core principle of liberty. After that, all bets are off. Protection for an individual’s liberty is supplanted by whatever the majority, as represented by those it elects, decides is acceptable.
Make no mistake, this is what the statists seek. We see it my neighbor’s happy vocalization, we see it played out on college campuses across the nation, we see it in the proliferation of “hate crime” legislation, we see it in the systematic “de-legitimizing” and banning via intimidation of certain words and phrases by social justice warriors and other members of the politically correct crowd. They don’t do this with a sense of sadness or resignation that rights are being curtailed in order to achieve more important goals. They’re happy to squash our rights.
Think about that for a moment. They’re happy when others’ rights are abridged. They’re not saying “well, it stinks that we have to infringe on your rights, but the greater good is more important than your individual rights.” They’re saying “Wheee! I get to stomp on someone who doesn’t agree with me!” There’s no regret, there’s no reluctance. Instead, there’s joy and eagerness. There’s glee in swinging a sledgehammer at the work of art that is the Bill of Rights. It’s little different from the barbarians of ISIS destroying museum artifacts – the sledge is being swung with righteous and positive purpose.
Do I engage in hyperbole in making this observation? Yes, but sometimes hyperbole is necessary to expose reality. The censorship of others, the stifling of dissent, the delegitimizing of non-conforming thoughts and ideas, the bullying and at-times physical intimidation of those who don’t toe the party line – that people could be happy at such things is mortifying. In this, they exhibit behavior remarkably similar to violent religious fanatics, to people who have been so imbued with righteous hatred that aggressive and oppressive action suffuses them with holy joy. Think of the book burners, think of the religious marauders current and of yore, think of the zealots of any sort. There’s no reasoning with such.
There is evolutionary theory that supports the predilection of the human mind towards religious belief. Social justice righteousness and adulation of the power of the state seem to fulfill that predilection for many who don’t have an outlet through traditional religion. The well-recognized mob mentality is also at play. It’s easy to commit harm against others when you’re subsumed by the like-minded and whipped into a frenzy of righteousness by the proximity of the tribe. It’s why this nation’s founders found it important to protect the individual from the group, rather than vice versa. It’s why the Bill of Rights speaks to protection for the ultimate minority – the individual – from the ultimate group – the State.
There’ll always be people who take glee in asserting their censorious will over others. They’ll have every rationalization in the world for their action, and their happiness is an outward demonstration of their inner righteousness. They’re wrong, of course. Censorship is evil, and those who embrace it are in service to evil.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters