, , ,

The hackneyed phrase in circulation among anti-speech liberals is “freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences”, which like most hackneyed phrases is a lie in service to an injustice.  As a matter of fact, freedom of speech means nothing if it does not come with freedom from consequences.  The only acceptable response to argument is counter-argument.  It is never violence, it is never expulsion from society, it is never imprisonment or fines, it is never economic punishment–for if any of these things is allowed, then open debate is infringed.  And if open debate is infringed, then our democracy itself is controlled by those with the power to sanction speech.  Because men benefit from sanctioning criticism of their misdeeds, this inevitably means the ruin of democracy itself.

[…S]omeone a thousand miles away, whom you have never met, and to whom you have no meaningful social relationship, can attack you for your speech.  Here I am drawing a distinction between arguing against you, which is permissible, and attacking your speech rights themselves, either by direct or indirect suppression.  In this we have a one-way exercise of power and its only point is to prevent your speech rights from being exercised.  This is as much in violation of the right to free speech as is a government agent fining or jailing you for criticism.

Important in this distinction is the element of balance.  If two people wish to disassociate from each other over a difference of views, that is permissible and natural.  If a group hears the speech of one person and chooses to ignore him, that is permissible and natural.  But when groups of people choose to punish a speaker, or large corporations choose to take away his voice in public venues, then there is an imbalance that is plainly evil.  The right not to hear speech is easily exercised, but it cannot extend to the right to force others not to hear it, or it becomes tyrannical.

Full post is here.