Lindsay Perigo: A 9/11 Salute to Free Speech, and Lament at Its Demise

Lindsay Perigo blogs about 9/11 and the demise of free speech:

“Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind. … A gun is not an argument.”—Ayn Rand

In my recent presentation, stopped short by evil Muslims, at Auckland University I noted the propensity for evil Muslims in civilised countries to take advantage of freedom of speech to hold demonstrations where they sport signs saying “Freedom of speech go to Hell!”

One wonders if these savages would be capable of giving a moment’s thought to free speech’s long, tortuous history, and if so, would they be given pause by it?

Those magnificent Greeks had more than an inkling of it—yet they infamously put Socrates to death.

The Enlightenment resurrected it after centuries of heresy-hunts and burnings at the stake. John Milton’s celebrated speech to the English Parliament, later published as the Aeropagitica (in deference to the Greeks), was an attack on Imprimatur, the literal stamp of approval one had to obtain from state censors on documents one wished to publish. (One could not obtain Imprimatur on anything attacking the Church of England or the Government.) Censorship of ideas, Milton said, was “the greatest discouragement and affront that can be offered to learning and to learned men.” Unfortunately, Milton made an exception of Catholics, since they were supposedly in thrall to a foreign power (the Pope).  

Then came John Locke, who did brilliant, original work in developing the concept of rights, including freedom of expression—except for atheists! Freedom of religion, it seems, did not extend to freedom from religion!

Locke did tumble to a vital distinction underpinning the case for free speech—the distinction between force and persuasion. Force he equated with governments; persuasion he equated with books. Persuasion cannot force, he argued; coercion cannot persuade. “Such is the nature of the understanding that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force.” The use of government force as an instrument of persuasion, he believed, was wrong; for the Government to censor the content of books (except atheist ones) was improper.

One hundred years later, the United States’ first Congress sent off to the states, for ratification, the following Amendment to the Constitution: “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.” What an achievement! From primordial slime through countless millennia of grunting evolution and brute force to such magnificent words as those!

And of course, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the French playwright and anti-Catholic polemicist Voltaire, who in 1770 had penned the following in a letter to a priest: “Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” This later became popularised as the classic affirmation, “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Then came John Stuart Mill, widely regarded as one of free speech’s foremost advocates: “If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.” Note, though, his over-arching view of when government force is justified: “… the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others.”

“Harm to others”? What does that subsume? It could cover any number of things, speech being just one of them, whose forcible prevention by the state would be profoundly anti-freedom. It could cover, for instance, hurting the feelings of others. It could cover withholding one’s earnings from others (Mill himself said that failure to perform certain charitable “duties” constituted harm). Would the exercise of governmental power then be warranted to protect people’s feelings by banning certain types of speech and to force people to perform their charitable duties? The contemporary incarnation of primordial slime—university lecturers and their slavish, mindless, quacking, upward-inflecting moronnial students—gleefully answer “Yes!”—as they enforce politically correct “speech codes” and “safe zones,” demand “hate crime” legislation, urge higher levels of taxation to fund more “free stuff,” etc., etc. And there is nothing in Mill to justify one’s saying, “No!”

Clearly, this won’t do. It’s a short, barely discernible step from “harm to others” to “injurious to the public good”—the indefinable notion that in one form or another underlies censorship legislation around the world. The imprecision of Mill’s argument has contributed to the dead-end of post-modernism whose pin-up boys like Stanley Fish write books with titles such as There Is No such Thing as Free Speech—and It’s a Good Thing Too. Free speech, says Fish, is a contradiction in terms; all speech is coercive. This is what, three hundred years after Locke, two hundred years after the First Amendment, we have been reduced to—as though Locke’s crucial insight distinguishing force from persuasion, so admirably crystallised in the Ayn Rand quotation above, had never happened.

But it did happen—and the pomo-wankers and the smelly Social Justice Warriors and the Islamosavages and all the other enemies of free speech know it. Some are so offended by it that they fly aeroplanes into buildings. Collectively, all of free speech’s opponents have almost succeeded in destroying it. The urgent imperative on civilised human beings is to restore it.



Do you want ad-free access to our Daily Crossword?

Do you want access to daily Incite Politics Magazine articles?

Silver Subscriptions and above go in the draw to win a $500 prize to be drawn at the end of March

Not yet one of our awesome subscribers? Click Here and join us.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story.  And when he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet.   Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet, and as a result he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist that takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him.  But you can’t ignore him.