15 August 2008--By John F. Triolo

The Canadian HRC, Free Speech, Censorship and the Limits of an Idea
In recent years conservative and Christian ideas and indeed conservative and Christian public intellectuals have found themselves increasingly under assault from, ironically enough, the state sponsored forces of liberal tolerance.  The secular radicals who form the power elite of American and European societies have, in their quest to create a Brave New West begun instituting a thought control regime worthy of the finest minds of Oceania. Throughout Canada and Europe conservatives and Christians are routinely penalized for publicly opposing officially acceptable notions of multiculturalism and sexual deviance.  Even in the United States, lauded by some for its First Amendment protections, the Left is slowly implementing a program designed to produce a public square where cultural suicide, gender confusion and sodomy may only be described as uniformly doubleplusgood.

As the limits of state-approved speech have narrowed in favor of a liberal norm, public intellectuals of a conservative and Christian stripe have begun harshly criticizing the actions of the various so-called “Canadian Human Rights Commissions,” their European counterparts and enthusiastic American imitators.  It is only right that they should do so.  Not only is it the solemn duty of every Christian to defend Truth against deception and to proclaim the Gospel regardless of the costs, it is quite plainly in their self interest.  No right thinking person (though those peculiar creatures seem to be in ever shorter supply) could take issue with this opposition.  It is possible, however, to disagree with the justifications and rhetorical and philosophical arguments marshaled in the service of opposition to thought control.

The vast majority of the arguments I have seen made in opposition to the actions of groups like the Ontario Human Rights Commission have relied not on an exposition of the merits of the censored ideas but instead on the so-called principle of Freedom of Speech.  This is an understandable rhetorical strategy; Freedom of Speech, in the abstract, is highly valued by those liberal who are also responsible for censoring ideas not in line with prevailing conventional wisdom.  However, as a serious philosophical proposition, belief in Freedom of Speech as a sort of guiding principle is nearly unforgivable in any self-described.  Censorship, like a certain amount of free expression, is a necessary and even laudable part of a healthy society.  Conservative public intellectuals do a great disservice to their cause if, in their haste to take shelter in the nearest port during a storm of censorship, they develop or promote a strong attachment to Freedom of Speech on principle.

It cannot be denied that we who accept the notion that some absolute Truth both exists and is discernable are on defense for the present. It also must be admitted that the power to regulate speech, if not always the authority, lies in the hands of those who seek to destroy Truth. However, chances are that eventually, God willing, the tables will turn once again and Christians and conservatives will be given an opportunity to use the power of the State to suppress immoral, heretical and dangerous speech  and to secure long-term social, cultural and intellectual hegemony.  To do so, we must reject notions of Freedom of Speech as a principle good in itself and remember that both Freedom of Expression and censorship are valuable, sometimes ugly, sometimes misused and often necessary tools of a healthy society.

Doubtless this view will attract a certain amount of opposition along the lines of “don’t take up the one ring.”  The adherents of such an opinion are shortsighted at best and foolishly ideological at worst. It is one thing to argue that Freedom of Speech is currently necessary to protect the correct positions. It is quite another to argue its universal necessity apart from historical context.  Anyone who lacks the confidence to silence opposition to his deepest convictions if he feels that opposition to be dangerous or unjust probably ought to keep his mouth shut anyway.

 Free Expression and Censorship; Principles or Tools of State?
One of the primary reasons why conservative intellectuals ought not to over-emphasize the principle of Freedom of Speech is that it is not really a principle at all.  Freedom of Speech is an anti-principle, a pragmatic agreement between parties of widely divergent opinions made in lieu of consensus on issues that actually are matters of principle.

Similarly, when various opponents of the Canadian Human Rights Commission rage against censorship, it is not really censorship to which they ought to object (at least in their private and semi-private philosophical reasoning, as opposed to the public rhetoric which is often forced by necessity) but rather its misuse.  Freedom and censorship of opinion are not themselves principles and should not be applied as such; rather they are tools which societies and those in authority over them might use to balance the common weal with both enforceable community standards of decency and individual freedom of expression, both of which are necessary for a healthy society.

This distinction is a key idea which is often lost in the din surrounding the battles over Freedom of Expression; censorship is a tool of state and little else.  There is no particular moral value attached to censorship, as such. When public intellectuals and men of letters, even those with the best of intentions, claim censorship as a universal evil (as indeed they often seem inclined to do), they might as well make a claim about the larcenous greed of crowbars or the mendacity of pencils and paper. It is quite reasonable to have strong objections to the way a tool is put to use but it makes less sense to object to a tool’s existence because we dislike its current application.  A drywall hammer is a tool and I might use it to demolish part of an unwanted wall while remodeling. Then again, I might use it to break into the Borghese Gallery and smash the face of Bernini’s David.  Similarly, I might use a paintbrush to cover over obscene graffiti or to deface a Titian.  Even if we admit the fact that censorship is, in truth, a form of violence, the analogy remains apt.  After all, I might use a gun might to fend off burgulars or shoot my dinner guests; which of these two purposes it accomplishes says rather more about me then the firearm.

The truth of the matter is that neither freedom nor censorship of expression or speech is an inviolable principle and they should not be treated as if they were.   Both are merely techniques employed by societies and those in authority over them to balance the need for individual expression against the legitimate and enforceable standards of the community and the prerogatives of the State.  It is well within the rights of legitimate purview of the Body Politic to determine, within certain bounds imposed by divine, natural and human law, what is the appropriate mixture of constraint and openness as regards public speech at the very least and possibly some forms of private expression as well.

Freedom of Speech as Unalienable Right
There are, of course, many who will claim that there exists an inherent an inviolable natural right to Freedom of Speech.  There are also many people who will claim that the Earth is flat or that the Moon landing was faked.  Absolute Freedom of Speech is not recognized as an inherent right even by the Enlightenment thinkers who developed the pernicious theories of natural rights which have plagued our country since its foundation.  For them, the right to free speech was a subsidiary right, derived as a logical consequence from a man’s unalienable rights which it in turn protected. This made the right to Free Speech subject to the restrictions imposed by the “terms,” so to speak, of the so-called Social Contract, on which is based the liberal conception of the State. For our country’s founders, certainly admirers of Enlightenment Thought, Freedom of Speech meant primarily freedom to make the political and cultural criticisms necessary to protect responsible citizens from tyranny of either the government or the mob.  Beyond that (and, as evidenced by the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts early in the history of the country, sometimes not even that far) there was no particular imperative to protect all speech, per se, until later in the county’s history.

There is not, however, any particular reason to prove the legitimacy of censorship within the liberal system of natural unalienable rights.  That is because the rights of man are not absolute and inherent but rather conditional and, in many cases, de facto.  The only absolute right a man may reasonably be said to possess is the right to work out his salvation with fear and trembling.  Beyond that, no authoritative right exists except insofar as it exists to facilitate the pursuit of some real good.  There is no right to be in error or to do wrong.  

Of course, the de facto right to do wrong might be said to exist in those situation where discouraging, preventing or punishing wrongdoing is inadvisable or impossible.   For example, the freedom of a man’s private beliefs might be said to be a de facto right (it was certainly considered so by the Stoics) in that one cannot compel a man to accept that what he does not truly believe without resort to immoral means; better that the State leave his conversion or punishment in the hands of God.  A similar argument might be made in favor of the freedom of certain types of private speech.  However, none of this changes the fact that on a fundamental, existential level error has no rights.  The existence of these de facto rights, such as limited freedom of opinion or speech, should in no wise be taken to mean that there is something laudable about them; rather they are a necessary evil in an imperfect world.  Furthermore, their existence should not imply that the State or other authorities may not limit the “rights” of their subjects, when this can be done effectively, morally and prudently, in order to prevent immoral actions and actions that go against the best interests of the commonwealth.  The right to Freedom of Speech extends only so far as its exercise in public is good morally and, to a certain extent, beneficial in the practical sense.  

The “Marketplace of Ideas”
One of the most common objections to censorship voiced by Christian and conservative intellectuals is that it stifles the free exchange of information necessary to the efficient working of the so-called “marketplace of ideas.”  This objection is based in acceptance and extension of ideological Capitalism.  Essentially, advocates of the “marketplace of ideas” assume that, all other things being equal, people will have a strong attraction to what is true, good and beautiful.  

This is a foolish, unempirical assumption for several reasons.  First, all other factors are not equal.  In the real world, as opposed to the ideological fantasies of hyper-capitalists, people (or perhaps we ought to refer to them as “information consumers”) do not have equal access to different ideas.  Certain points of view will always have more resources with which to persuade others.  Even if one were accepted that this disparity were a bad thing, which it is not, there would still be no way to practically redress it.

Second, there is no particular reason to think most people prefer good ideas to bad ones. Fallen human nature has often proved itself much more willing to embrace easy, comforting lies then demanding truths.  Even a cursory survey of the tragic histories of the last century will reveal that men are most inclined to believe that they are better than their fellows, unaffected by their vices and not responsible for their failures.  The Truth is hard where lies are easy and most men, like water, will take the path of least resistance.  Any system that relies on human beings always, or even usually, choosing the hard right over the easy wrong is doomed to failure.

Finally, there is the fact that the unregulated or under-regulated “marketplace of ideas” works much as any under-regulated marketplace.  It is rare for free markets to remain that way. Rather than remaining in a perpetual equilibrium or massively favoring the best “products,” the freest markets tend toward the creation of monopolies. Monopolies destroy free markets always and anywhere they arise.  Monopolies and emerging monopolies, despite having often developed in Lassiez-faire environments, often turn toward government intervention to grow and protect their domination of the market.  The same is true of emerging intellectual monopolies in the “marketplace of ideas.”  Just as a powerful manufacturing concern, having captured a significant portion of the market, will turn to government to impose regulations which raise high barriers to entry and diminish the impact of competition, the proponents of an idea with widespread appeal will often seek to ensure that competing opinions are marginalized or eliminated from the public square by government intervention.

This is exactly what has occasioned the creation of regulatory bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  Multiculturalism and the homosexual agenda were allowed to compete freely for acceptance in the public square.  They faired well in the absence of a truly robust, rather than default, Christian-normative cultural context, particularly among society’s dominant elites.  Now, having secured the implicit consent of much of the disinterested or credulous public, the proponents of these pernicious ideologies have co-opted the police powers of government to begin reshaping the limits of acceptable public discourse in their favor.

The multiculturalists and radical homosexual activists, did not seriously begin to use the coercive power of government to promote their ideas until they had already secured  widespread, if not majority, acceptance in the “marketplace of ideas.”  There is no guarantee that if all points of view are given a “fair hearing,” the right ones will necessarily win out.  In truth, there is no such thing as a “fair hearing” for untrue ideas.  Errors, although they ultimately have no right to exist, where they are allowed to survive and given room to grow often flourish like weeds choking out the flowers of the garden of discourse.

Censorship as Self Defense
Another reason that conservatives and Christians ought not to be too fervent in their embrace of Free Speech as a bulwark against leftist thought control is that such arguments are essentially appeals for tolerance.  It is tolerance which allowed the current New Speak regime to develop.  If the “right”, so-called, had been more willing to “dirty” its hands with censorship, it may have prevented the censorship of its own ideas.

Let us consider the example of the militant homosexual movement.  Fifty years ago, homosexuality was a shameful, nearly unheard of lifestyle confined to the seediest areas of certain cities and universities.  By the 1970s it was considered degenerate and unwholesome but basically harmless as long as it was confined to easily identified bath houses on the West Coast.  In the 1980s and 1990s it was slowly gaining grudging toleration through to a loosely managed strategy that combined militant activism with the creation of a victim culture and carefully coordinated propaganda campaigns designed to make homosexuals appear normal.

Jump forward in history to the present day.  “Gay marriage” or a civil substitute is available in several states here in America.  Homosexual adoption is also becoming commonplace.   Each new gain is protected by a hedge of speech codes, equal opportunity measures and “hate crimes” legislation designed to force the general public to not only tolerate but accept and admire a deviant lifestyle.  In Canada and Europe it is common for hefty fines to be levied against the adherents of divergent opinions who dare to voice these in the public square.  Similar policies are in their early stages in our country.  

The homosexual lobby, in so far as such a thing can be said to exist as a single entity, did not arrive in this position by accident, nor was the coercive power of government their first weapon of choice.  Instead supporters of ideological homosexuality worked slowly and patiently to change public perceptions about their lifestyle and gain some measure of tolerance through careful manipulation of the “marketplace of ideas.”  It was only after a significant portion of the population began to agree with them that they started to seriously petition the government to actively silence other points of view.  

Consider how much good could have been accomplished through a little judicious censorship early on in the process of gaining public acceptance for the homosexual lifestyle.  By simply controlling the access of unsavory ideas to various media, conservatives and Christians then in power could have ensured that homosexuality remained the culture of the seedy underground rather than an interest group exercising wildly disproportionate influence on the public policy process.

Contrary to popular belief, this use of censorship as self defense is not inimical to democracy.  Indeed, it is in Democracies where orderly control of the public debate over issues of grave moral significance is most needed.  Democracy, for all its considerable virtues, always teeters on the cusp of mob rule or demagogic despotism.  The popular control of the organs of power makes it necessary to clearly delineate at least the moral boundaries of acceptable debate.  While vigorous debate must be allowed within those parameters, those opinions and ideas which fall outside the limits must be vigorously silenced to prevent the pollution and coarsening of the public discourse.

It is important to keep in mind that refusing to use the power to censor unacceptable speech while in government does not gain conservatives any goodwill from their enemies when the tables turn.  The adherents of false and pernicious ideologies will not fail to use the power of the State, however unjustly, to silence dissent when they hold the reigns of government.  It is necessary therefore, in order to protect themselves and their societies, that those who possess the Truth of Christianity make use of the same power to destroy the viability of competing ideas when they themselves have the power.  This goes against the grain for many conservatives.  “Why should I,” they say “Give the government authority the use of which I will not be able to vouch for when my faction is out of power?”  Of course, this would be a valid concern if it were not so painfully demonstrated time and again throughout history that, when in power, the enemies of Christianity and prudent, un-ideological conservatism are perfectly willing to usurp those powers which they have not been granted to further their own ends.  By failing to consider the use of the power to regulate speech themselves, Christians and conservatives are throwing away a powerful weapon which is the only defense against itself.  

Conclusions
The unjust and onerous restrictions placed on public speech by semi-autonomous commissions such as the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and developing analogous groups here in the United States must be opposed.  They must be opposed forcefully and consistently, especially by those who consider themselves conservative, traditionalist or Christian, the main Thought Criminals in the Brave New West.  The opposition must be unrelenting and make use of whatever means one’s conscience and the dictates of Christian morality will allow.

They should not however be opposed simply because they restrict speech or define the acceptable limits of public discourse but rather because they do so in the service of lies against Truth.  They should not be fought against because they silence dissent but because they silence the wrong types of dissent.  The modern organs of censorship should not be destroyed because they are organs of censorship but because they are the defenders of the decadent and immoral against the vigorous and just.  

In our opposition to the Orwellian depredations of the homosexual activists and multiculturalists who dominate our official elite, we must not fall into the trap which so often ensnared our forefathers, that of further enshrining Free Speech as a cultural value.  We must, at least among ourselves, recognize Freedom of Speech for what it is; an occasionally convenient social compromise and rhetorical defense, nothing more.  Though we are, in these troubled times, bound to concern ourselves with the danger of censorship we must never forget that we were brought to this grave point in our history largely by the power of unregulated ideas, by freedom of speech.


                                                                                    Go to the Next Entry in the Symposium