Lukianoff’s Free and Spirited Debate in One Act
Originally published at Grasping for the Wind. Please leave any comments there.
The following is my entry for the New Threats to Freedom Short Form Contest. It is in response to the embedded video below titled “Lukianoff on Free Speech.”
Click to view(Two college seniors, a late night dorm room debate)
Samantha
Greg Lukianoff says that university speech codes violate free speech, which is an inherent First Amendment right.
Jonah
Stanley Fish disagrees. He says free speech is an abstract concept that serves agendas. University speech codes are intended to protect students from wounding another person and so create a civil society.
Samantha
Surely there are many cases where such codes overreach? (e.g. recent Supreme Court cases) Speech codes have consistently stifled debate and the exchange of ideas on the open marketplace.
Jonah
But those are just outliers. And while the Supreme Court may have overturned them, look at the cases. Most of them have to do with malicious or unwarranted attacks on individuals. They are attempts to stifle the free speech of another and so should be regulated.
Samantha
(incredulous) Don’t you see the contradiction there? We must stifle speech in order to protect another’s speech….
Jonah
(exasperated) But that goes back to my point about agendas. Everyone is attempting to further an agenda (consciously or not) when they speak. It is simply impossible not to regulate some speech. You would agree that obscenity should be regulated?
Samantha
Sexual obscenity yes. But religious iconography depicting Mohammed or Jesus is not obscenity and so should not be regulated.
Jonah
(rubs hands) Therein lies the rub. Who gets to define what is obscene? Is vitriol about minorities or ethnic groups obscene? Members of those groups certainly think so. It’s in an effort to prevent such obscenity that speech codes exist. Are they arbitrarily or incorrectly applied sometimes? Sure. Should they be abolished? No.
Samantha
But if prevention of obscenity is the only goal of free speech, wouldn’t it be better to silence the offender by tearing apart his arguments in the public forum? Can’t we use reasoned disagreement to stop the hateful offender?
Jonah
Not likely. After all, hatemongers only get louder and angrier when their fallacies are revealed. Meanwhile individuals are critically wounded by the likes of David Duke or Ward Churchill.
Samantha
So their “feelings” were hurt? Are they so sensitive that they can’t handle dissension, even unreasoned or vitriolic dissension?
Jonah
(determined) Young students don’t have the mental equipment. You act as if college students are actually mature in some sense. Prolonged adolescence means that any “debate” on a college campus is really just individuals spouting axioms at each other.
Samantha
You may have a point there. I know that as a freshman, I was anything but logical or mentally disciplined. But I still can’t swallow this idea of speech codes being needed because of hurt “feelings.” (annoyed) Isn’t sentience our very ability to rise above “feelings” by using reason?
Jonah
Sure. But this is more than “feelings.” We are talking about emotionally scarring speech that divides society rather than uniting it. Sure, this is on an individual by individual basis, but it does have a cumulative effect.
Samantha
(heated gestures) Well, I just can’t accept that. Call me “unfeeling” if you want, but anyone who can’t handle being provoked or attacked deserves what they get.
Jonah
(smirking) Point proven.
(Both storm off angrily.)
END