No matter how ugly it gets ...
In defence of free speech
Carson Jerema, Staff
This past March, a column entitled the “52 ‘Funniest things about the upcoming death of the Pope’” was published in the alternative weekly The New York Press. Among the many provocative statements in the article was: “Doctors examining the body discover that the Pope was not only a woman, but also Hitler.” The column sparked an outrage that ultimately resulted in the suspension of editor-in-chief Jeff Koyen by the paper’s owners. Subsequently, Koyen called his boss a wienie and quit.
Free speech is something we take for granted, but it is attacked and impeded every day, either through direct political control or through self-censorship. This is no less true when it comes to what should be bastions of the free exchange of ideas — university newspapers.
Many papers, the Manitoban included, refuse to publish material that is deemed by their editorial boards to be discriminatory, usually on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation and religion.
At a glance, these may appear to be reasonable restrictions on one’s freedom. However, the pitfalls of restricting any form of opinion outweigh the benefits. And choosing what to censor based on whether or not it is discriminatory is a notoriously subjective task.
For example, some statements against employment equity policies could be read as arguments against the fair treatment of minority groups or women. But such arguments could be intended to illustrate that some employment equity policies do not properly address the issue or that they go too far. Should such arguments be censored?
Limiting the free exchange of ideas assumes that the opinion to be censored is false and is known infallibly to be false. If the opinion censored turns out to be correct or relevant, then the truth may be lost. Do editors, at the Manitoban or elsewhere, have the moral authority to decide for their readership what should not be published based on whether or not it is offensive and hateful or whether or not it could be perceived to be so?
Some may argue that criticism or even a rebuke of feminism should be censored based on the perception that it is sexist. Even if it is sexist, restricting it assumes that it has nothing to offer. There may be elements in some anti-feminist positions that feminists could benefit from. Ignoring criticism only serves to allow one’s point of view to become stagnant and dogmatic.
While we may discount some arguments because they are wrongheaded, restricting them could limit our ability to learn from their errors and prevent us from seeing flaws in our own opinions. William Blake once stated that, “The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.”
Should clearly hateful opinions be given the opportunity to be published? If we can somehow ascertain that we have the truth, how will we know it to be true unless we are challenged and forced to defend it?
If we can somehow ascertain that we have the truth, how will we know it to be true unless we are challenged and forced to defend it?
In the fall of 2003, the Manitoban went against its mandate and published a letter to the editor by Hymie Rubenstein, a U of M anthropology professor. Rubenstein argued, among other things, that homosexuality is a medical condition.
What ensued was a “shit storm,” as one writer put it; the Manitoban was bombarded with letters opposing Rubenstein’s views. Several passionate and well-articulated letters detailed flaws within Rubenstein’s argument and defended the need for a campus that respects and is proud of its diverse student population.
The campus came alive to debate an issue that otherwise may have remained cloaked in censorship. By refusing to acknowledge the existence of views such as those held by Rubenstein, arguments against homophobia could be more easily dismissed. A devil’s advocate might need to be created in order to legitimate the view that discrimination and hatred still exist in our society. However, a devil’s advocate is easy to reject and, with it, the notion that anti-hate arguments are still relevant.
Finally, because censorship is based on subjective perceptions, the potential for molding a paper to fit a certain political bias becomes all the more likely. When one starts to censor, it is difficult to know when to stop.
For instance, the McGill Daily states in its constitution that among other forms of discrimination, “socioeconomic bias or prejudice has no place in the editorial policy or content of the newspaper.” What this means exactly is unclear.
Would the Daily censor an argument in support of cutting social spending for the purposes of fiscal stability? If they did, would the rationale be that such an argument discriminates against those who depend on social spending to survive, and is hence a potential form of socioeconomic bias?
If student papers continue to allow any and all forms of censorship to creep in, they will no longer be forums for critical debate but rather mouthpieces for particular ideological perspectives. And many would say they already are.
Only by openly debating society’s ills can we truly move forward. And only by encouraging different views about politics and social organization can we promote open mindedness. Censorship, no matter how well-intentioned, only serves to close minds.
Carson Jerema is a fourth-year political studies student and the Manitoban’s Comment Editor.
