Free Speech Fallacy

Free Speech Fallacy

Scott Aikin and John Casey

The free speech fallacy (FS) consists in thinking one’s political right to freedom of expression includes protection from criticism. Those who commit this fallacy allege that critical scrutiny is either tantamount to censorship or equivalent to the imposition of one’s views on others. The error in the fallacy is that the freedom of expression includes critical expressions.

A confusion about the nature of critical exchange lies at the heart of the FS. What the FS does is wrongly accuse others of fallacy or abuse of critical dialogue. It achieves this through two key distortions. The first distortion concerns the logical consequences of criticism. If A criticizes B for view p, it stands to reason that A thinks B should no longer hold p. The rejection of p is a logical consequence of A’s view. The FS, however, ignores the reasons given for rejecting p as essential to the exchange, treating them instead as incidental to the exchange. What really matters is that B’s view has problems, not that A has problems with B’s view.

The second distortion treats the personal sting of criticism as its defining purpose. Return to A and B: if A criticizes B for holding view p, B may hear an accusation of being superficial, lazy, or biased. Feeling personally attacked can make B reluctant to speak. But a claim that B is mistaken does not necessarily imply a character flaw, and the discomfort of being challenged does not establish that A is trying to suppress expression. The reasons offered against p still need to be addressed.

Examples

Phil Robertson / Bristol Palin (2013)

Phil Robertson was a national celebrity in 2013. He was one of the stars of the reality television show Duck Dynasty. It came to light that Robertson had strong anti-gay views. In a particular sermon, Robertson said that homosexuals are “full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters” (Nichols 2014). Robertson found himself the target for a good deal of criticism. Bristol Palin, blogger and daughter of the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, came to Robertson’s defense with a version of the FS fallacy. Her case ran that because Robertson is guaranteed the right of free expression, others do not have a right to hold his views to critical scrutiny and express their reasons for rejecting them. The trouble with this argument is that freedom of expression does not mean freedom from criticism.

Kanye West and Taylor Swift (2016)

Kanye West, a popular hip hop artist, has had a longstanding feud with another pop artist, Taylor Swift. In his song “Famous,” West muses that “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex. Why? Because I made that bitch famous.” The line is a triple-dip on misogyny. He calls Swift a bitch and implies that having sex with him is her best way to thank him for her fame. And there is the thought that it was his actions that made her famous. West quickly found himself in a swirl of criticism. In reply, he tweeted: “I did not diss Taylor Swift and I’ve never dissed her. […] First thing is I’m an artist and as an artist I will express how I feel with no censorship” (Johnson 2016). He follows by noting that the critics are “trying to criticize the real artist” and “want to control us with money and perception and mute the culture.” The error, again, is confusing what effects criticism may have (in that one may feel attacked and threatened) with what its ends are (namely, that of subjecting publicly shared views and actions to rational scrutiny).

Clint Eastwood (2009)

It is central to FS that it focus on the personal implications of criticism rather than the criticism. Actor Clint Eastwood provides an interesting case in point. In 2009 he said he firmly believes that making jokes about other races is acceptable: “People have lost their sense of humor. […] In former times we constantly made jokes about different races. You can only tell them today with one hand over your mouth otherwise you will be insulted as a racist” (Hall 2009). It is indeed true that accusations of racism are particularly powerful. Their power, however, may distract from the reasons offered for employing them. In this case, Eastwood presents himself as a victim of name-calling (ad hominem: direct; see Chapter 10) by “humorless killjoys.” What is missing, and this is crucial, are the reasons for levying such a charge in the first place. The FS has obscured those.

How to Avoid and Critique the Free Speech Fallacy

How does one avoid the FS, and how does one criticize it when others use it? In the first place, it is good to remind everyone in a critical discussion that the point of critical discussion is to sort the good ideas from the bad. In the process, so the hope goes, we correct errors, understand more, and come closer to the truth. But for this to happen, people must be free to say what they think, those who disagree must be free to express their disagreements, and all must be willing to hear out the reasons for and against (Aikin and Talisse 2011). Etiquette often stands in the way of such critical discussions – it’s an old rule that it is impolite to discuss politics or religion. But well-run critical discussions need not be impolite so long as all involved don’t confuse their rights to say what they believe without coercion with their right to say what they believe without criticism.