Trying to deny free speech poses threat to society

Throughout history, human beings have treated others, including other species, deplorably. Most of these atrocities were in the distant past, but many continue. To avoid acknowledging the past, many try to sweep our misdeeds under the rug. However, no matter how many statues we remove or names of institutions we change, we can never erase our past.

Removing these images does not rid us of our collective guilt. What it does is run the risk of forgetting our history, which is problematic because, as philosopher George Santayana famously said: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” To acknowledge, debate, learn and, most importantly, never forget our mistakes, these images should perhaps be left exactly where they are, not hidden, but out in the open. This way, the words “never again” might result in genocides and mass killings never happening again.

In the age of social media, where a brand can be damaged in seconds, corporate executives encounter significant challenges when faced with a crisis involving political correctness. The standard approach involves removing the controversy quickly. If executives delay, they are often perceived as condoning the offence. Recent examples include the sacking of a Google employee for writing a memorandum on diversity, and Twitter, Google and GoDaddy removing the accounts of neo-Nazis.

These decisions are clearly understandable, but it would be naive to think that deleting the social media accounts of racists will make them go away. Like schoolyard bullies, these individuals need to be confronted, and their ridiculous views must be challenged. As hateful, poisonous and hurtful as their views are, maybe the people who hold them are disadvantaged, disenfranchised or damaged and need help. As has been shown in the past, some of these individuals, through support, education and compassion, have been convinced of the follies of their ways, changed their views, and have become productive members of society.

However, when individuals, especially those who are desperate — as we have seen with those who inflict pain and suffering under the ISIS flag — are forced underground, they seek revenge. Driving hateful groups underground does not solve the problem. It may have far-reaching consequences. With the growing social chasm between the haves and have nots, there are extreme political issues that exist within these groups.

Contrary to our highest values of democracy and justice, further issues arise when the executives of tech companies control who has freedom of speech. Obviously, speech that runs contrary to democracy, justice or hate laws must be punished under the full force of the law. Similarly, censorship and any infringement on one’s fundamental human right of freedom of expression and opinion that does not conflict with democracy and justice must be resisted.

If we start infringing on the freedoms of others — as we have seen with protests against free speech rallies, universities cancelling speakers who hold controversial views or, for example, Cambridge University Press temporarily censoring articles that challenged China’s human rights violations under pressure from Beijing — we are creating a society with potentially alarming side effects.

If we start demanding certain forms of censorship, it may lead to the stifling of important, albeit controversial, views that challenge social norms, politicians, governments and religious institutions.

In China, lawyers and academics who challenge the government are imprisoned. In the former Soviet Union, dissenters went missing. Many were killed. The censorship that occurred through the book burnings in Nazi Germany was one of many steps that led to the murder of six million people.

Attempting to address the racism and hate that continues to plague our societies is a challenge. But driving hateful people underground is not the best solution, neither is having death flags waved in our faces and hate speech polluting our ears.

Although these debates are important, they seem little more than a political sideshow or a distraction from seemingly more pressing matters such as the consumer debt crisis, rise of protectionism and nationalism, NAFTA renegotiations, rising unemployment within the working class, and major shifts in geopolitics.

Jeffrey Overall is an assistant professor at Nipissing University, where he teaches entrepreneurship and strategy.