Free speech is an aberration –
In most societies throughout
history and in all societies some of the time, censorship has been the means by which a ruling group or a visible majority
cleanses the channels of communication to ensure that certain conventional
practices will go on operating undisturbed.
It is not only traditional cultures
that see the point of taboos on speech and expressive action. Even in societies
where faith in progress is part of a common creed, censorship is often taken to
be a necessary means to effect improvements that will convey a better life to
all.
Violent threats like the fatwa on Salman Rushdie and violent acts like the
assassinations at Charlie
Hebdo remind us that a militant religion is a dangerous carrier of the demand for the
purification of words and images.
Meanwhile, since the fall of Soviet
communism, liberal bureaucrats in the North Atlantic democracies have kept busy
constructing speech codes and guidelines on civility to soften the impact of
unpleasant ideas.
Probably an inbred trait of human nature renders the attraction of
censorship perennial. Most people (the highly literate are among the worst)
believe that what is good for them will be good for others. Besides, a regime of censorship must claim to
derive its authority from settled knowledge and not opinion.
Once enforcement
and exclusion have done their work, this assumption becomes almost
irresistible; and it is relied on to produce a fortunate and economical result:
self-censorship.
We stay out of trouble by gagging ourselves.
Among the few motives that may strengthen the power of resistance is the
consciousness of having been deeply wrong oneself, either regarding some
abstract question or in personal or public life. Another motive of resistance occasionally pitches in: a radical,
quasi-physical horror of seeing people coerce other people without having to
supply reasons. For better or worse, this second motive is likely to be mixed
with misanthropy.
No comments:
Post a Comment