Yes. No one has a monopoly over truth
Opening up to uncomfortable debate enlarges community — beyond those we agree with, to include those we don’t, even when the latter bring extremist speech.
It also enlarges the marketplace of ideas, bringing in new and old views, however offensive and belligerent. The goal is to keep the community together, for the purposes of pursuing the truth together, rather than declaring ourselves right, the others wrong.
The exclusionary alternatives, however righteous they feel, render opposing communities, opposing truths, each one just in the eye of its beholder. The alternative limits our own community to hearing only what we choose to embrace, not what hurts.
And pain is the touchstone of community growth, out of which painful truths are to be found. The exclusionary alternatives foster division and more division, with no possible resolution outside war, at least figuratively.
Actions usually speak louder than words. To deny or censure so-called extreme speech is the wrong way to combat falsehoods because the act of censorship or censure is a message of excommunication. The fate of shrinking sectarian communities that embraced excommunication is a cautionary tale.
Besides, extremism is in the eye of the beholder, and the label can mask a bias about the bias objected to by its opponents. And off we go down the rabbit hole of censorship, using words to construct a limit on speech based upon assumptions about those words which may not be true.
Even when we acknowledge that hate harms, that doesn’t mean there is a clear line to draw between a speaker’s prejudice versus criminal or violent conduct. Nelson Mandela was identified as an extremist in his lifetime, characterized as a violent, treasonous criminal by pro-apartheid Afrikaners.
We may want to give the extremist a platform because we recognize that allowing full exposure of extremist views, through debate, permits it to be deconstructed and debunked. Refusing to debate the extremism means that the deconstruction and debunking are left to the listener to unravel on their own, or not at all.
There is also the reality that not all those who call for radical change are racists, homophobes and xenophobes. Some are impatient reformers who think fighting for incremental change to urgent problems (like poverty, the wage gap, corruption) is a fool’s errand.
They instead propose so-called extreme solutions. Debating the radical may end up being the best way to achieve even moderate results, pushing a conversation further than it would otherwise go.
The argument that debate and engagement only raises the profile of the extremist has a beguiling logic, but the message it sends is too smug, too timid and so limited. Other than denying the dignity of a response, nothing further is learned by anyone in the immediate or broader audience, nor those wishing to counter the extremism.
Counterspeech is a more effective tool, even it falls short of a formal debate. When white nationalists held a “Unite the Right” rally in D.C. a year after Charlottesville, they were far outnumbered by counterprotesters. The message that sends is more powerful than what would be accomplished if the anti-racists refused to “dignify” the nationalists with a response.
Historically, the benefit of debating ideas, extreme or otherwise, seems to outweigh the harms. Not so long ago the idea of same sex marriage was dismissed as extreme. That “extreme” idea became a fundamental right through an exchange of ideas and heated debates over many years and in various venues.
Freedom of expression exists not to protect the views of those with whom we agree, but for exactly the opposite reason. It’s a freedom forged in the humble idea that no one has a monopoly over the truth.
If your primary goal is victory of your truth over others’ lies, then censuring extremists makes sense. That tactic is certainly democratic but it can also backfire. By contrast, allies can be won over through humility and sacrifice, by enlarging the community to tolerate difference.
Besides, history suggests that divisions eventually have to be healed rather than conquered. If a nasty debate is not the best means to that end, it’s better than a premature mic drop.