While I accept the right to free speech, I also accept that it (like all rights) has moral limits. These moral limits can be used to justify legal limits, but such matters are settled by the courts rather than philosophers. While it is reasonable to believe that there are limits to free speech, it is equally reasonable to believe that these limits can be debated. Unfortunately, the debate is often distorted with emotions and bad reasoning.
As should be expected, many people dislike and even hate white supremacists, even more so as the supremacists become more Nazi like. Because of this strong emotional response, people often think that white supremacists should be silenced. However, how one feels about a speaker is not a good guide to whether the speaker should be allowed to speak. This is because, obviously enough, feelings are not reasons and the strength of a feeling is no measure of its correctness. That is, just because I really hate something does not mean it is bad. People do, of course, “reason” in this manner and “infer” that what they like is good because they like it and what they dislike is bad because they dislike it. As such, when considering white supremacists and free speech, it is important to approach the matter with reasons rather than feelings. This is not to say that feelings cannot be appropriate (one should dislike white supremacy), but to say that one cannot infer the correctness of a view from how one feels about it. A moral position should shape our emotions rather than our emotions determining our moral positions.
As with many debates over rights, the debate over free speech is often distorted by the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This “argument” has the following form:
- Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
- Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there are a considerable number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
In the case of free speech, the usual slippery slope argument is to claim that if the free speech of some person or group is restricted, then everyone’s free speech will be in danger. For example, someone might claim that if white supremacists are not allowed to speak, uninvited, on a college campus then soon everyone with unpopular views will be silenced. If a case can be made showing how this will plausibly play out, then there would be no fallacy—but that is rarely done.
The slippery slope fallacy gets most of its power from psychological factors, typically involving fear. The idea is that the person targeted by the slippery slope is supposed to be afraid of the bad consequence that is alleged to follow and this is intended to blight their reason and get them to accept the fallacy as reasonable. The slippery slope fallacy also gets some of its power from the fact that there can be good reasoning that resembles the fallacy. Specifically, a causal argument that shows that the slope is slippery by making the causal link between one event and the consequences.
In the case of free speech, a case can be made that argues from the restriction of the free speech of white supremacists to restrictions on all unpopular groups and then on to everyone. While this would avoid the slippery slope fallacy, there would still be the question of whether the argument’s premises are true and how strong the argument is. To use an analogy, someone could argue that sex with minors (statutory rape) should not be banned because this is the first step towards banning all sex. While the steps could be laid out, it is rather evident that the slide can be stopped: adults can be banned from having sex with minors without banning all sex. Likewise, white supremacists can be restricted without this sliding to other groups.
In many cases, people also make use of another fallacy, the line drawing fallacy, in trying to argue that one thing will follow from another. The line drawing fallacy occurs when it is claimed that unless a precise line can be drawn between X and Y, then no distinction can be made between them. In the case of white supremacists, the argument would go that there is no clear line between white supremacists and other unpopular groups, so there would be no way to distinguish them. As such, if white supremacists were restricted, then these other groups would be restricted. While it can be challenging to make such distinctions and there will be problems, it is clearly possible to make such distinctions. Going back to the sex example, the transition between a child and an adult is imprecise. However, it is clearly possible to make such distinctions and make then part of law. As such, white supremacist groups can be distinguished from other groups, though there would be considerable debate about where the lines would be drawn.
While the focus has been on white supremacist groups, the same principles would apply to analogous groups. So, for example, black supremacist groups who advocated ethnic cleansing and such should also be subject to the same restriction as white supremacist groups.
In closing, it must be noted that I do not favor restricting people who advance unpopular, false or morally wrong views about “races” when they do so in the context of an actual discussion and are not engaged in presenting a threat to others. This, of course, goes back to the principle of harm discussed in a previous essay.
Joe Postove says
October 30, 2017 at 9:12 amWhy target white supremacists? What about (in my home now of Israel) Hasidic supremacy, or elsewhere, Islam supremacy or the notion that ANY group claims sovereignty over others? White supremacy gets called out (for good reason) because of the actions of some in the name of that concept. No one should be held accountable for the behavior or speech of others.
The only limit to free speech should be where the speaker stands (public square or private space) and I would promote the most boundless and abundant freedom to expression. We should as a free society allow the most dreadful speech EVEN in the public square (it belongs to all of us, right)? In the private space, freedom of expression should be unlimited, up to the point where it directly interferes with the rights of another (not just their feelings).
I live about 45 minutes from Jerusalem and Israel will not have freedom of speech until a Nazi can march down Ben Gurion Blvd..
Michael LaBossiere says
October 30, 2017 at 2:06 pmWhite supremacists are in the news now; but I do make a point of noting the general principles that would apply across the board in relevantly similar situations. So, the principles applied to white supremacy would also apply to black supremacy and Islamic supremacy.
WTP says
October 30, 2017 at 3:14 pmI do make a point of noting the general principles that would apply across the board
A Google Advanced Search of this site to contrast frequency of usage of terms “white supremacist” vs. “black supremacist” vs. “Islamic supremacist”, and usage by whom, is left as an exercise to be performed by the student.
TJB says
October 30, 2017 at 12:33 pmIt is easy to set up age-based restrictions because age is well-defined. “White supremacist,” however, is not well-defined. I’ve read articles claiming that every white person is a white supremacist.
Just keep in mind that if you change the rules, you must be prepared to accept that someone you don’t like may be interpreting the rules.
Do you feel comfortable letting Donald Trump deciding what you can and cannot say?
Joe Postove says
October 31, 2017 at 6:28 amTJB, you might go as far as to sat that anyone with a healthy self-esteem is guilty of individualist supremacy.
TJB says
October 31, 2017 at 9:56 amDictatorship of the individual!
dh says
October 30, 2017 at 12:37 pmYou took the “Slippery Slope” argument in a completely different direction than I thought you were going. I have some comments.
So when you presented your initial syllogism,
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
I thought you were talking about violence – that Event X was the talk by a hated speaker, and Event Y was the violence that this talk might trigger. To that I might add an intermediate step or two:
1. Event X is going to occur
2. Similar events have, in the past, triggered Event Y
3. Therefore, it is likely that Event Y will occur again as a result of Event X.
Of course, there is also the assignation of responsibility – i.e.,
4. Therefore, Event X is directly responsible for Event Y.
Of course, 1, 2, and 3 above are not enough to restrict the right to free speech. If #4 can be proven, there might be a case (If, for example, a rally where “Kill All Cops”, was a theme, which directly incited attendees to go out and kill cops, there would be a much stronger “Fire In A Crowded Theater” case to be made.
However, with regard to the “Slippery Slope” argument you did make, there is a major aspect of this argument that you failed to acknowledge.
We are a nation of laws – the application of these laws is challenged in courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the arguments presented invariably involve precedent. Establishing precedent in a court of law is an extremely important step in the interpretation of our laws, and has a significant cascading effect on further interpretation.
While your logic may be valid outside this context – within it there is always the creeping authority held by our lawmakers who build incrementally based on precedents that have been set.
The constitution states very clearly that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
NO LAW.
If a case were to be presented that established an exception to that law, for whatever reason, then the right of free speech could and would be challenged in every court in this country, based on the expanded interpretation of that reason.
As I indicated in a prior response, if the activities of a white supremacist group could be curtailed because of a violent response on the part of an unruly mob, then could that same rule apply to say, an abortion clinic? Both the white supremacist group and the abortion clinic are, presumably, acting within the law of the land, and both groups stir up violent reactions among their detractors. The law must be applied evenly, regardless of the opinion of the public.
I think that if you ask any lawyer or judge, you will find that in cases like this, the “Slippery Slope” argument does indeed apply.
TJB says
October 30, 2017 at 10:18 pmMike, are you really sure you want to turn you back on the first amendment?
CoffeeTime says
November 3, 2017 at 9:43 amI had trouble digesting this essay, so I fell back into an old habit of summarising it. I gave it far too much attention, but I am appalled at this, and all other, attacks on people’s right to discuss their national laws and policies.
Para 1: Free speech has/should have limits. Debate on this issue is often distorted.
Agreed. Debate on all social and political issues are often distorted, so this is not unusual.
Para 2: Many people hate the people they identify as white supremacists.
Note the admission that they hate the people, not necessarily or only the belief. Hating the people will bias them toward restricting and punishing those people, regardless of those people’s actual beliefs or the correctness of the logic. Further, I agree with TJB that it is no longer possible to define “white supremacist” in a way that will be generally accepted. This makes the term meaningless for discussion purposes, and the people who are hating may be hating different people.
From a legal perspective, how are “white supremacists” to be defined? From a practical perspective, how are they to be identified? Mandatory insignia sewn to their clothing, perhaps?
Para 3. Slippery Slope is defined. One distortion in the free speech debate is when a Slippery Slope argument is made witout foundation.
It is never possible to claim inevitability in any slippery slope in the social or political fields, since it is always possible that an event like an atrocity will turn public opinion against the direction of the slope.
It appears that the insertion of the word “inevitably” in the definition of Slippery Slope argument in this paragraph makes this a straw-man objection, since in practice most, perhaps all, social and political Slippery Slope arguments are made on the basis of likelihood or risk or existence rather than inevitability. If it is asserted that no argument that doesn’t claim inevitability is a Slippery Slope argument, then most of this discussion vanishes. Further, in colloquial use, I would argue that a statement like “The decriminalisation of cannabis will lead to legalisation”, as a conclusion based on a Slippery Slope, does not implicitly claim inevitability.
Para 4. A Slippery Slope argument is fallacious when it does not include plausible arguments showing the mechanism of each stage of progression of X to Y.
Almost, but perhaps not quite. Such a presentation is either fallacious or incomplete, or both. However, not all presentations need to detail the complete argument; not everyone will sit around to hear every link in a causal chain for hours, and eventually we run into Zeno’s Paradox, needing to prove an infinite number of steps. If X makes Y more likely, and that is obvious, we have sufficient argument to discuss – though, of course, each step is subject to a factual or plausibility challenge. The statement “The decriminalisation of cannabis will likely lead to legalisation” would be excluded from your definition of Slippery Slope because it doesn’t claim inevitability, but I recognise it as a Slippery Slope argument. That the various steps from decriminalisation for personal use to full commercial legality are not given, and are subject to examination, does not make the argument fallacious, just incomplete.
Para 5. Asserts that Slippery Slope arguments about free speech are often invalidated by the failure to present a plausible mechanism, and that presentations of slippery slope arguments against restricting free speech often do not make a plausible step by step case.
As noted above, not every presentation needs to present all steps, especially when there are a multitude of paths to get from X to Y.
Para 6. Asserts that slippery slope fallacy gets most of its power from psychological factors
Agreed that, when presented as a fallacy, it does. When presented as a valid argument, it still gets quite a bit of persuasive power from psychological factors as well.
Para 7.
1. Asserts that a case can be made that argues from the restriction of the free speech of white supremacists to wider restrictions
2. Questions that unspecified argument’s strength and premises
3.Argues by analogy that because sex with minors can be prohibited without banning all sex, that “white supremacists” can be restricted without banning all speech that offends someone, somewhere.
4. Asserts, based on this analogy, that a ban on “white supremacists” could be enacted without affecting other people.
Point 1. Agreed. In this thread, DH has made this point.
Point 2. It’s not much of a challenge to question an unspecified argument. Perhaps you should make a case against DH’s post?
Point 3. Whatever about slippery slope argiments, argument by analogy has all the cogency of holding water in a sieve.
Point 4. This assertion carries no weight. The appropriate course of action would be to propose a specific measure, examine its relationship to general ethics, the US Constitution, experience, and case law. Then deal with and discuss the responses to that specific proposal.