Political correctness opposes free speech

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that political correctness restricts public debates and thinking in society and in mainstream media, with the result that 'touchy' issues are not discussed efficiently and there is no flexibility with social boundaries. The complaint is about which subjects can be raised at all rather than about which conclusions are reached, since a boundary that cannot move determines the range of a debate before the debate begins. On this account, political correctness is a form of social engineering used to silence people with 'controversial' ideas. The objection is sharpened by a point about how the standard is set: political correctness is not fixed, so what is unacceptable changes, which raises the question proponents treat as decisive, namely who gets to decide what qualifies as unacceptable. A rule that shifts, and whose authorship is unclear, can be neither complied with in advance nor contested afterwards. The charge is then directed at those who invoke it. Politicians who condemn others citing political correctness, excluding 'hate speech' or clear examples of discrimination, are going against the principles of freedom of speech, because they are silencing people according to their own standards rather than any agreed one. The carve-out matters, since it concedes that some restrictions are legitimate and locates the objection in everything beyond them. Proponents differ over where the practice came from, and the argument records both accounts. Some people think political correctness is a leftist plot that silences the right and removes 'alternative politicians' from mainstream media, and that because much of the world's views are not strictly 'politically correct', they are not represented. Others think that 'The whole political correctness movement was invented by the Far Right to inhibit any meaningful discussion of diversity issues in order to keep racial, gender, and other barriers in place.' On either account, the effect on speech is the same.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Political correctness doesn’t oppose freedom of speech. Political correctness ensures that respect and understanding needed in debate are employed. In this way it advocates successful debate which strengthens the premise on which freedom of speech is widely accepted.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise asserts the restriction rather than showing it, and the issues it calls undiscussable are argued over constantly in the press, in legislatures and online — which is evidence of debate rather than of its absence. [Rejecting P2] Social pressure about how people speak is not the state silencing anyone; it is other people exercising the same freedom, so the premise describes a feature of open discourse rather than a limit on it. That the standard shifts is equally true of every norm of politeness. [Rejecting P3] Criticism is not silencing. A politician who condemns another's words has added speech to the exchange, and the argument names no case in which anyone was actually prevented from speaking.