Some claim that “wokeness” (formerly “political correctness) has gone too far so that “you can’t say anything anymore.” As evidence people often offer examples of celebrities who faced some consequences for saying things that seem racist, homophobic or sexist. They also point to trigger warnings, safe spaces and when right wing speakers have been harassed or silenced.
While the moral right of free expression and the legal right of the First Amendment should be protected vigorously, there is the question of whether it is true that one can’t say anything anymore. By this people do not mean that they cannot say what they want; their worry is there could be consequences for what they say.
My view on free expression is unoriginal as it is based on Mill’s principle of harm: a person is free to say what they wish and the only thing that warrants limiting this liberty is to protect others from harm. As I have argued in past essays, merely offensive speech is not harmful in a way that warrants restricting it. But there is a large grey area between expression that should obviously be restricted (such as the infamous yelling of “fire”) and expressions that should not. I am happy to debate about what should be moved one direction or the other, but I adopt a principle of erring on the side of freedom and place the burden of proof on those who would restrict freedom of expression. We should assume that a person has a right to say what they wish unless there is a logically compelling reason why they do not. In fact, I encourage people to express whatever hateful views they might have, that way we know what sort of person they are. That said, I am aware of an obvious problem with my view.
The problem is sorting out whether the harm generated by expression warrants restricting it. As noted above, I hold to a high bar. What is merely offensive, insulting, enraging and so on should not be restricted. My view here is analogous to my view on same sex marriage: some people claim it is deeply offensive to their beliefs but allowing it does them no meaningful harm. It is ironic that the principle I use to defend same sex marriage I also use to defend the expression of people who oppose it on the grounds they find it offensive.
While people should be free to say almost anything, I also agree with another of Mill’s views: he made it clear that while people should be free to do as they wished if they did no harm to others, people should not expect their free expression to be free of all consequences. While racism, sexism, xenophobia and bigotry are popular in the United States, expressing these views can come with a social cost and consequences. People have been fired for such expressions, which is sometimes a disproportionate punishment. The consequences should be proportional to the offense, which is a basic principle of punishment I stole from John Locke.
While it is just and right to be upset in cases in which the punishment exceeds the misdeed, there is far too much hand wringing and complaining that people face any consequences for expressing racist, sexist, xenophobic or other bigoted views. Expression has always come with consequences; the current anger seems to be mostly because members of advantaged groups sometimes pay a price for saying what they previously were able to get away with. I do agree that the consequences should be proportional. For example, someone who made one racist tweet years ago should not be punished today if they have done nothing similar recently. But for someone to be outraged they cannot say racist, sexist, or other bigoted things with no consequences is unreasonable. It is like being angry they “can’t say anything” because they are not free to shout obscenities in school, church or at work without suffering some consequences. So, one is free to say anything, but not free of the possible consequences. Just as it has always been.
The problem is rather this, it seems to me: since, as Schopenhauer said, fools always form the vast majority, and intelligent people always the tiny minority, you get a lot of fools on either side of the spectrum, i.e. both ‘woke’ and ‘politically incorrect people’. The main difference, it seems to me, is that a lot of ‘woke’ people complain about how the world they live in is at odds with their longing for acceptance, a view which is in general correct, but since they have no capacity for putting forward solid arguments, they deliver their disappointment in generally the wrong ways, which makes them look unpleasant and annoying. Whether or not one is intelligent, no one wants to hear another complain about how the world turned out the way it is, because everyone is dealing with a world of their own.
But it is also true that in general, the ‘politically incorrect’ people – are- racist, etc. In general, they aren’t good people, and in the case they are, they are ignorant people, which amounts to more or less the same thing.
Intelligent people, it seems to me (I can’t be sure since I don’t define myself as intelligent, at best a slow learner, but willing to learn something), do not readily complain about how they expect the world to conform to their wishes, but rather, they try to adapt.
Nor are intelligent people ‘politically incorrect’, since most ‘political incorrectness’ is indeed ignorant and stupid.
The woke people are -not- far wrong: the world is -not- loving and nice to them. The racism is real, even though it can be very mild, or overt. Their mistake lies in demanding and expecting that it is, as if this were due to them. They do so by indicating that one cannot say what has been said. No, it can, provided it is not clearly breaking any laws. Saying disagreeable things is lawful, unless it’s hate speech etc. It’s up to the other party to put forth a valid and eloquent argument that aim to show how stupid the utterances were.
So, an old saying went like this: If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all. Precisely.
Ironically, much ‘wokeness’, and ‘cancel culture’, seems very similar to fascism:
”Don’t say or do anything we don’t like. You’ll better be the way we want you to be, or else you’ll pay a price.”.
But in the end, these people won’t get anywhere: he who demands to be liked, will only be disliked more, and one who tries to force people to be a certain way, will only be met with more resistance.
IMMHO, in my most humble opinion, these artifices: wokeism, political correctness and other nonsense, have been, are signs of decay. This is not America. I think friends and expatriates in Europe, Canada, South America and Australia agree. To announce there are things we can say; things we can’t say; things we must not say is contradictory to constitutional rights. I am outraged over treatment of a Wisconsin county judge…when someone questions or challenges what one judge decides, the traditional opportunity is appeal, to a higher court. I am uncertain of what may happen to Judge Dugan, now and going forward…I don’t like the implications, vis-vis, rule of law…the Executive branch of government does not supercede the Judicial branch: the first does not CHARGE the second for anything. Were that not true, at least one sitting Supreme Court justice, would have not gotten, should have not gotten on the high court. OK. Maybe I am wrong here. But, considering a Big Picture, there remain those signs of decay, initially mentioned. Is anyone paying attention?
I was confused on the meaning of wokeness. Now, I understand it. The truth has consequences. Funny, how I came to that conclusion because of remembering and old tv quiz show. Any, yes, one must use caution because freedom of expression/speech has a price. It all has, as you said, gone too far. I don’t spend anymore time than necessary in public anymore. Family ties are what I characterize as tentative because of societal division generally. It is sad.
”…Unless they are bad people themselves.”. I know that’s not philosophical, but I believe that bad people have no rights whatsoever. That is, people who have already been proven to be bad by the law, where the law didn’t make any mistakes. I don’t really care for these people. Take for example mobsters, I could care less if they were victims of racism. That they received some evils in a world they themselves have acted in evil ways, I’d say it actually serves them well. I only respect good people, or at least decent people, i.e. people who have done no harm, even though they might have not been heroes either.
I believe that if one has done no harm, this makes them a decent person already, simply because no harm was done to others by them.
Well said. As Russell wrote in his autobiography, people should be judged on the whole, not just by picking their flaws (unless of course the flaws are significant). I myself don’t like the ‘woke’ thing at all, these people go around as if the world owned anyone something, which it never did. Most of them just seem to be whining about how the world doesn’t conform to their expectations. Most of them seem also pretty ignorant, so for example they’ll heavily criticize someone like Churchill for being racist, but I doubt they even know or understand why the man is, and rightly so, so famous.
Sure, I am on the side of victims of unfair treatment, racism, etc. Unless they are bad people themselves. But as you wrote: …”What is merely offensive, insulting, enraging and so on should not be restricted.”. Being offensive is NOT against the law, only hate speech and clear examples of racism, etc is against the law.
If only the whiners understood that ‘unlikeable’ doesn’t mean ‘criminal’. Moreover, can you imagine if every film maker, writer, musician, painter, sculptor, etc, would have to shut up and just create stuff that these whiners like? It would be a complete farce…..all the movies, books, paintings, would be nauseatingly predictable and boring, as if it were all created by good children. As you wrote elsewhere, fiction is just that, fiction.
These people seem to believe that freedom of speech exists only for ‘good children’. No, it exists for ANYTHING, provided it’s not against the law. Being offensive, unlikeable, disagreeable, etc, is not against the law, unless it is.
Thank you for your essay.