PC culture erodes free speech

The argument

Through social intimidation and ostracism, political correctness puts pressure on citizens to conform. The enforcement is informal, which is precisely what makes it effective: there is no rule to consult, no charge to answer and no appeal, only the knowledge that certain things are not said. Controversial and contentious ideas are silenced and deemed politically incorrect — or, in the reverse formulation, political correctness gone mad. The objection is partly about who decides. Intellectuals and media pundits become the gatekeepers of what is acceptable speech and what is not, a role nobody elected them to and one they exercise without any stated standard. The result, on this view, is a society shackled by social norms, in which a homogeneous use of language is forced on everyone — one that never injures or offends any race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or religion, and which therefore cannot express disagreement about any of them. The consequences described are consequences of fear. This creates a society reminiscent of communist purges, in which citizens are forced to tread on eggshells, fearful that they could be accused of being a racist or a sexist and end up a social pariah. The accusation does the work of an argument, since there is no procedure for rebutting it. Rather than fostering harmony, the argument runs, this fosters enmity, fear and resentment — people do not change their views under that pressure, they conceal them, and resent the concealment. The mechanism is also not confined to one side. Both sides use the politically correct umbrella to silence those who hold beliefs they disagree with: right-wing figures use it to dismiss genuine objections to their racism, just as the charge of racism is used to foreclose argument elsewhere. That it can be deployed in either direction is, on this view, evidence that what is being enforced is compliance rather than any particular standard of decency.

Context

George Washington famously said, “if the freedom of speech is taken away then the dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to slaughter.” In our post-Enlightenment society, free speech is an inalienable right. We must be able to have the freedom to express our opinions, whatever they may be, and expect them to be challenged and scrutinised by those with opinions that differ to ours.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There must be a clear differentiation between protecting freedom of speech— as the ability to express any idea— and prohibiting acts which are damaging and offensive. Consider the use of two words; ‘gay’ and ‘faggot’. Both words can be used to describe a person’s opinions and ideas towards homosexuals. But the former does not inherently contain an act. It is solely an expression. Within our definitions of freedom of speech, any opinion can be expressed using the term ‘gay’ and it is protected by the principles of freedom of speech. The latter term, ‘faggot’ is not merely an expression of opinion. It carries with it inherent actions. It is designed to demonise, stigmatise, and abnormalize. Therefore, socially excluding the use of this word is not an erosion of free speech, as the term is not just an expression of speech but outlawing dangerous and damaging actions and behaviour. In the same way, few would argue that phoning a school and making a bomb threat should be protected under free speech. Although the bomb threat uses words to express an idea, it is inherently an action that should be outlawed. The same applies to political correctness. A politically correct society does not limit free speech, but sets restrictions, as all societies do, on what are acceptable and unacceptable actions.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Political correctness does not inhibit free speech.