Silencing Bad Ideas
The question is not what is bad but who shall decide what is bad
It’s tempting to prohibit bad ideas from being expressed
The problem is that we can’t agree on what constitutes “good” and “bad”
If only good ideas are allowed then whoever decides what is “good” will control society
Human nature will exploit any opportunity to silence opposition
The censorship debate is not about which ideas are palatable, it’s about whether government should be permitted to criminalize thought
Some people have really bad ideas. Not merely "bad" in the sense of being incorrect but also in the sense of being evil. Most of us would prefer that these ideas weren't in circulation, of course, so that raises the question of whether we should allow government to forcibly silence them.
This would be censorship, obviously, and that doesn't have a particularly good reputation in the West. But just think of all we could accomplish -- of all the good that could be done -- if we weren't constantly having to combat bad ideas. How many lives could have been saved if nazism, fascism, and communism had never been permitted to take hold?
Given these examples, it seems clear that we should only allow the expression of good ideas. Lives would be saved, and we could get down to the serious business of social progress.
But there's a problem. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell: the most basic question is not what is good but who shall decide what is good.
Who shall decide?
It turns out that people have very different notions of what constitutes "good" and "evil." Christians, for example, believe that the Bible is good and certain activity, such as homosexuality, is evil. Leftists, however, believe that the Bible is evil and homosexuality is good. These are not reconcilable differences.
If we as a society decide that only good ideas may be expressed, then one group is going to get a megaphone while everyone else gets a muzzle. If Christians get to decide which ideas are good then homosexuality isn't going to make the cut. If leftists get to decide, the Bible isn't going to make the cut.
In the former case, gay bars are going to be shuttered. In the latter, churches.
"Hate speech" = "bad speech"
It's simply impossible to limit expression to only good ideas when we can't even decide what "good" is. Any attempt to do so will inevitably result in an oligarchy ruled by whomever gets to define "good." If that's the kind of society you're looking for, you needn't wait for it to fully materialize in the US; you can move to any communist, socialist, fascist, or islamist country right now. Paradise surely awaits you.
Of course no one wants to live in such a society unless, of course, he is controlling it, which is the Left's intention. The scenario I've described above -- one in which a small ruling class maintains its power by prohibiting opposing ideas -- is precisely what leftists are attempting to bring about through so-called "hate speech" laws. The question here as before, is not what is hateful but who decides what is hateful. And, as before, the same answers and consequences apply.
Can't we just silence the really bad stuff?
But might lives be saved by preventing the spread of evil ideas like fascism? In theory, yes, but not in practice. Here again we have the same problem: the question is not what is fascist but who decides what is fascist. That sounds absurd until we realize that we've been living this reality every day for several years.
As we're all aware, a major disruptive element in our society (and that is putting it kindly) is a group called AntiFa, which is short for "anti-fascist." But while this group claims to oppose fascism, it perpetuates the same principles and tactics of those who, just a century ago, called themselves fascists. What's more, they label "fascist" anything and anyone they disagree with regardless of whether that person or thing has any conceivable connection to fascism.
They take it upon themselves to decide what is fascist because doing so justifies what would otherwise be unjustifiable; namely, committing acts of violence against their political opponents. This is something they intend to do regardless of whether their opponents are fascists. Labeling them as such just puts a more socially-acceptable face on the violence.
And this gets to the heart of the issue: human beings are natural tyrants who will seize on any opportunity to silence their opposition, even if they have to cite a specious basis for doing so. Once society or government provides a means to impose that silence -- no matter how limited its intent -- we are going to exploit it. If the only kind of acceptable punching is nazi-punching, then everyone we want to punch becomes a nazi. If the only kind of illegal speech is "hate" or “disinformation,” then all speech we dislike is going to fall into one of those categories.
It's not about desire, it's about rights
The censorship debate is not fundamentally about whether certain ideas such as fascism are desirable, it's about whether the government should be permitted to criminalize thought. It's about whether politicians, bureaucrats, and their monied puppet-masters should be allowed to violate our God-given rights in order to solidify their power. Everything else is misdirection.
I don't want leftism to spread for the same reason I don't want cancer to spread, but its bad ideas can be stopped by good ideas. They cannot, however, be stopped by silence.