To speak or not to speak, that is the question: Free speech is a sword, not a shield

An article appearing in the Manitoban at the University of Manitoba on November 3, 2008 led to a flurry of debate over whether the article should have been published with the disputed word in place. (The article can be found at http://www.themanitoban.com/comments/its-time-prioritize-our-children.) Ken Mandzuik, MARL’s Immediate Past President, responded with the following commentary.

In my job, I write quite a bit, and I’ll confess I’m fussier than most when it comes to language, grammar and word usage (which makes me especially fun at parties. . ..…). I’m a lawyer, and my job requires me to parse language to see what interpretations a phrase can reasonably bear, whether there’s some way a sentence might be construed to mean something that I don’t want it to mean, and whether I can make an argument that the words being used don’t really mean what they appear to on first reading. The words I choose are important, as is how I use those words. Of course, context is relevant — I’m going to be more casual in a text message than in a formal document, more casual with friends than in court. We are judged on the words we use, though the inferences a listener or reader will make will depend on the context in which words are used. It’s with this background that I read Patrick Gratton’s “It’s Ttime to Pprioritize Oour Cchildren” in the 3 November Nov. 3 2008 issue of theThe Manitoban.

Mr. Gratton’s article was sent to me mostly because of the ensuing discussion over his use of “fag.”. I actually took more issue with the use of “prioritize,”, but that’s really my being fussy more than anything else. I’m gay, and I took no offence to the use of the word in the context it was used, irrespective of whether a different or better word might have been used. At the same time, it’s entirely understandable that others might have been offended. The Manitoban was entirely right to publish the article as written. Heavy words like “fag,”, “nigger,”, etc. can be lightly thrown about, at a writer’s peril,; and the use of those words (and really all words) should be judged and parsed and debated as warranted. Replacing them with enervated euphemisms is pointless and patronizing — all but simple children read the “N-word” as “nigger,”, so I can’t imagine whose (intellectually honest) sensitivities are protected when the former is used in favour of the latter.

Many of the gains made achieved in over the last, say, century by women and minorities were made possible by full and frank and open discussion. Jealously protected free speech gave the disenfranchised a voice — debates were held, arguments dissected, knowledge imparted. Unfortunately, many well-meaning progressives of all stripes forgot the victories won with the support of free speech, and wanted to restrict speech when it could have offensive effect. Happily, I think, chilling speech codes and overly restrictive political correctness have diminished in prominence. Equally happily, the PC-era provided for some great debate about language, and, indeed, about free speech and whether free speech is always a good thing. This doesn’t mean offensive or inappropriate speech should go unchallenged, though: when a colleague tells me that one of the girls in his office will look after something, I’ll see it as a teachable moment and make some remark about his hiring the prepubescent.

A good, straight, friend recently told me something was so “gay.”. We hadn’t been discussing Madonna or Project Runway or anything similarly fabulous — he’d used “gay” as meaning “stupid.”. This led to a late night, wine-enhanced argument on the power of words and language. He’s not remotely homophobic, and doesn’t equate being gay with being stupid, although we know that was the origin of using “gay” in this fashion. In “Politics and the English Language” (which everyone who writes, ever, really should read annually), George Orwell writes: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”. Using “gay” as a synonym for “stupid”, I think, can’t help but have the corrupting influence on thoughts and perception. Going unchallenged, there’s a tacit consent that it’s okay to equate being gay with being stupid, or that being gay isn’t somehow acceptable. Do we ban the use of the phrase? Should it be removed from Tthe Manitoban? It shouldn’t be used this way, and right-thinking people won’t use it this way, but I’d rather have people not use an offensive phrase or epithet based on an understanding of why they shouldn’t, rather than because of some vague notion of impropriety or potential offense. For me, the same argument applies to hate speech — I’d rather have an open discussion on Holocaust denial or cartoons of Mohammed than throw dissenters in prison, drive them underground or fine them for hurting feelings. Mr. Gratton’s using use of “fag”, and Tthe Manitoban’s decision to permit its use has led to an open debate on speech — we’re all better for it.

One of the prices of free speech is hearing things that might offend us or upset us. The answer isn’t to prevent or restrict that speech, but rather counter it with our own. If people are too afraid to speak their minds or make an unpopular statement, we all lose. Words and speech have power — to good and ill effect. Muzzling unpopular speech might spare some feelings, but it does so at too great a price.