Damaging Words

I was pointed to yet another article purporting to explain why there should be limits on speech in modern democracies/republics. Having read a number of these now, I've come up with a general set of points that all of them seem to hit.

1. Free Speech absolutism presupposes that speech in and of itself is not harmful.

2. In a partisan environment, people are liable to see intrinsic harm in the more strident speech of opposing partisans.

3. In a partisan environment, Harm Reduction absolutism is considered a valid trump to Free Speech concerns.

4. Arguments as to whether speech is harmful in and of itself or as an intrinsic characteristic of the speech itself are difficult, since the harm caused by speech is fundamentally different than the harm caused by more material interactions. (Two people may bleed identically when cut the same way with the same knife, yet may have very individual responses to the same speech.)

5. In a partisan environment, partisans are liable to see Harm Reduction absolutism on the part of opposing partisans as a cynical ploy to erode human rights, as they generally do not find more, or even the most, strident speech of co-partisans as intrinsically harmful. This is exacerbated by the fact that claims of harm are often, if not always, self-serving when viewed by an outsider.

6. Partisan authors tend to pick a side, and then argue that the idea "that speech in and of itself is not harmful" is not only wrong, but objectively and self-evidently so (another cynical ploy to erode human rights), and then pick only speech by opposing partisans to showcase as inappropriate, setting up a rebuttal that will invariably fall into the trap of "Whataboutism."

7. A reader with low partisan attachment will find the repetition of the same points over and over by opposing partisans, who appear to be talking past one another and/or preaching to their respective choirs, tiresome.

What's needed is a focus on the supposed harms and why they are there. This is what can be used to buttress arguments that claim that certain speech should be suppressed in the name of reducing that harm. Policing speech is neither trivial nor inconsequential; it's unlikely to meet a test as the least intrusive way to get the job done unless it's very carefully justified. And picking partisan sides doesn't come across as exercising the required care.