In writing this I risk hypocrisy, because I have enjoyed
countercultural fruits while now proposing a new principle that might ban them
all in the future. I’ll saw the branch I sit on. In my defense I submit myself
and my generation to William Blake when he wrote that the road of excess leads
to the palace of wisdom. The new principle is this: Injustice is that which thwarts revolutionary creativity. Revolutionary creativity is not mere cleverness, like an
observant monkey escaping its cage. It is the practice of discovery,
transmission, and application of truthful principles of man and nature, for the
loving purpose of increasing man’s capacity to survive as a species, through
scientific and artistic revolution. Anything that serves that Truth (which we
could term God or the general welfare), is just, and, anything that harms it is
unjust. Now, imagine free speech to be an inalienable right. Why, and,
from whence comes, that right? Not the State, for if the State gave, the State
can take away. From God? How do we know? We know, because the nature of man is
to be creative, and, the purpose of society is to foster that creativity, that
man may survive changing conditions which bring new threats to his survival,
through revolutionary adaptations in his thought and practice. So long as man
is made in God’s image, God must—if He is of any account—intend man to survive,
and to do so man must creatively flourish, and to creatively flourish man must
be able to think and organize society . . . through speech (whether oral,
written, musical or imagistic). Remember that, like health, or wisdom, justice is an unlimited
good, the more of which the better. Logically, then, the less injustice we
have, the better. So, speech can be just or unjust. Logically we ought to censor
unjust speech, in order to be as just as possible. The question is,
specifically, what is unjust speech? Consider the case of blasphemy, especially blasphemous images.
This cuts to the core of the Western tradition of Jesus Christ as Logos, in a
manner that goes beyond rational criticism or mere rejection, into desecration
and ugliness. For example: giving the Virgin Mary a rainbow homosexual halo,
parodying Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper using drag
queens, minors and an edible Dionysus, depicting the Crucifixion of Jesus as
pornography, and worse. Man is groomed and coarsened by such imagery. In terms of how it
affects the innocent, it is worse than pornography. Indeed, the often sexual
dimension of such blasphemy is, like porn, specifically intended
not merely to hurt religious feelings, but to sully the sacred and
corrupt the traditional morals of youth. Further examples of unjust speech would include direct death
threats (except in self-defence), invasion of privacy (child pornography,
warrantless searches), libel (except over contested facts), fraud (including
counterfeit goods and political deepfakes intended to mislead the electorate),
crying wolf (as by pulling a fire alarm without cause), and forced utterances (such
as being legally obligated to use transsexual pronouns). A case can be made for
instructions for crime, anticlassical music, adult pornography (except marital
aids), graphic violence (horror films, police snuff, ISIS propaganda videos),
treasonous leaks of classified material, and postmodern architecture. You
may disagree with some on this list, but, all? Is counterculture hopelessly censorable, then? The case can be
made that countercultural speech can be used justly as a kind of vaccine
against corruption, by carefully exposing people to it in controlled and
limited doses, similar to how the Ugly is used in Classical art.[1] This is
reminiscent of the religious or shamanic use of psychedelics rather than for
mere kicks. Note that this essay does not purport to be the last word in
censorship, but, rather, the first word in a serious attempt to organically rein
in the terrible effects of unjust speech on society. It may be that Plato’s
paternalistic republic was onto something after all. He only lacked correction
on the true nature of man and society’s purpose. We already exist in a worsening mental health crisis, an economic
crisis, a political crisis, a demographic crisis, a religious crisis and a
social crisis. Unrestricted freedom of speech becomes an exercise in sedition.
It is mere license, not liberty. Subversion is admired while beauty and
morality are marginalized and mocked. Could our decline be related to the fact
that our society tolerates huge and drenching quantities of unjust speech?
Could this be intentional, serving the oligarchic elite by snuffing the sacred
revolutionary spirit of man from childhood on? Certain kinds of minds are impossible under the pervasive
tyranny of unjust speech. I remember seeing a film showing a gruesome murder of
an innocent man when I was a child. That was the first wrong thing
I ever saw in my life. More followed. Now, we drip unjust speech, and we think
it’s normal, even indispensable to our enjoyment. But, few grasp how the
innocent mind is affected by unjust speech, and how serious adults in the
recent past were in preserving those minds. I regretfully find myself among the
corrupted, recalling shocking words and images I have encountered. We have all
become salty sailors and jaded prostitutes. Is this really the only road to
wisdom? A society internalizing and unfolding the principle that
injustice—and unjust speech—is that which thwarts revolutionary creativity,
will be fit, in principle, to retain the old Chinese “Mandate of Heaven.” One
which does not has, to that degree, bestialized itself and is not
morally fit to survive, because the laws of physics will crush any society that
cannot innovate in the face of new threats. And, the universe is full of
threats; history is littered with societies that failed to meet them. [1] The Cult of Ugliness, or Beauty as a Necessary Condition of
Mankind https://larouchepub.com/hzl/2001/feb_conf_address_010218.html
One’s relationship to the principle of freedom of speech is
likely informed by a variety of sources. Some of us were first drawn to the
principle by the British and French liberal intellectuals who made long-lasting impacts on the structures of Western
society. Others were introduced to this most fundamental of freedoms by the
valorous souls who bravely risked their lives on historic battlefields, or who
drafted constitutions before flickering candlelight. For many, this hallowed
principle was revealed from the depths of the vulgate; the crass and raw
belting roars of rock ‘n’ roll, with the great bards of the genre challenging
the rigid cultural norms of their time. Though these academics, warriors,
legislators, and artists may seem like unlikely allies, they would all be
troubled by the dawn of a new oppressive orthodoxy threatening our modern
cultural landscape. Of course, our motley crew of contrasting crusaders would
have seen far worse in the prime of their respective eras, as well as the eras
of those who preceded them. They knew well of Socrates’ infamous condemnation
for corrupting the youth by challenging customs and authority. A similar accusation
was levied against the heterodox psychologist Jordan Peterson in recent years—an
accusation which lesser man may never have recovered from.[1]
In 19th-century Upper Canada, the social scientist Robert Gourlay
was jailed for pamphleteering against the political power structures of his day.[2]
Two centuries later, many prominent Canadians are questioning so-called
“anti-hate” bills, such as Bills C-11 and C-63, fearing that they subdue
dialogue and restrict dissent.[3][4]
In decades past, American cultural icons such as Lenny Bruce and Jim Morrison,
were arrested and charged with obscenity for holding a mirror up to society’s
flaws.[5]
A broader fight of free speech continues in the USA today, as many students and
professors push back against new speech codes on college campuses. As Ecclesiastes
wisely wrote, ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. This ancient maxim often holds
true in the discourse around free speech, with one glaring difference between modern
discourses and those of the past. Technologies which the free speech heroes of
yesteryear could never have fathomed have made themselves ubiquitous in our
society. On the bright side, our digital Gutenberg machines have provided us
with an extraordinary wealth of information, making once suppressed manifestos,
diatribes, war cries, songs, and literature freely accessible at our fingertips.
However, these newly established
networks have also provided opportunities for encroachment by governments and
corporations, who are threatened by our newfound digital populism. The growing
pains of Gutenberg’s informational revolution were all too often felt on the
rack, and if we are not careful, an analogous fate might freedom lovers of the
digital age face. The internet was once hailed as an informational Wild West.
Even in the halls of power, legislative acts such as Section 230 in the USA,
and the Electronic Commerce Directive in the EU, were written and updated to protect
the fledgling medium from burdensome restrictions. Today these acts, and the
protections they upheld, are being reconsidered by a new generation of
bureaucrats and politicians.[6]
[7]This
nefarious nannying in our legislatures is but one theatre in a greater war on free
expression being fought across the Western world. The age-old tendencies of the
censorial past appear to have resurfaced in the digital age and have manifested
in ways both tragic and outright bizarre. A truly awful example of this can be found in a recent series
of German legal cases. The cases began after a horrific sexual assault, wherein
a 15-year-old German girl was savagely assaulted by nine young men. Outraged by
the assault, a 20-year-old German woman took to WhatsApp to vent her
justifiable frustration. She railed against one of the assailants, an Iranian
national who was 19 at the time of the attack, calling him a “disgusting freak”
and a “disgraceful rapist pig”. For this
passionate outburst, she was sentenced to a weekend in jail for defamation. This
was a harsher sentence than those received by eight of the nine rapists, only
one of whom received any jail time at all. [8]
[9]
This case clearly demonstrates the
dangers of an institutionalized censorship regime adapting itself to the
digital age, and it also hints at the ideological underpinnings of those who
have eagerly embraced this censorial authority in recent years. From the baffling decisions of the German court system to
the North American elites, who openly endorsed Black Lives Matters demonstrations
while restricting anti-lockdown protests, the new regime of Western censorship often
seems to side with left-wing sensibilities.[10]
Though, throughout history, the political left is far from the only faction to suppress
speech and to silence opposition. Today’s conservatives, and classical
liberals, ought to keep this in mind should the cultural landscape shift back
in their favour. The unique challenges of the digital age present a new
frontier in this age-old fight for freedom of speech and expression. Though the
fight has found a new theatre, it is nevertheless a continuation of the battles
fought by our honoured forebearers. It is therefore fitting to draw upon their
wisdom in this time of uncertainty. In the spirit of the great philosophers, we
might take up the classic Voltairean mantel of defending one’s right to speech even
if we disagree with the content. From the revolutionary warriors, we must learn
that standing up for one’s convictions requires a willingness to suffer and
sacrifice. From the great legislators of liberty, we might study to the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, perhaps the most effective protection of
free speech ever enshrined in law. Finally, in the spirit of the great artists
and rockstars, we ought to learn the importance of using our gift of freedom to
create something worthwhile. [1] Currie,
Aidan. “Hundreds Sign Open Letter to U of T Admin Calling for Jordan Peterson’s
Termination.” The Varsity, 30 Nov. 2017,
thevarsity.ca/2017/11/29/hundreds-sign-open-letter-to-u-of-t-admin-calling-for-jordan-petersons-termination/.
[2] Wise,
S.F. “Gourlay, Robert Fleming.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography,
www.biographi.ca/en/bio/gourlay_robert_fleming_9E.html. Accessed 18 Sept. 2024.
[3] Seles,
Nicholas. “Why Youtubers like Me Oppose Bill C-11 - Macleans.Ca.” Macleans,
macleans.ca/politics/why-youtubers-like-me-oppose-bill-c-11. Accessed 18 Sept.
2024. [4] Van
Geyn, Christine. “Under Bill C-63, an Online Comment Could Cost You Thousands |
National Post.” National Post, 8 Mar. 2024,
nationalpost.com/opinion/christine-van-geyn-under-bill-c-63-an-online-comment-could-cost-you-thousands.
[5] Davis,
Stephen. Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend. Gotham Books, 2014. pp.
24-25. [6] Bartholomew,
Jem. “Q&A: The EU’s Digital Services Act Rewrites the Internet’s Rulebook.”
Columbia Journalism Review, 6 Sept. 2023,
www.cjr.org/tow_center/qa-the-eus-digital-services-act-rewrites-the-internets-rulebook.php.
[7] Zach
Lilly, opinion contributor. “The Internet’s Death Warrant: Congress Looks to
Sunset Section 230.” The Hill, The Hill, 23 May 2024,
thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4680582-the-internets-death-warrant-congress-looks-to-sunset-section-230/.
[8] DH
Web Desk. “German Court Gives Woman Harsher Punishment than Convicted Rapist
for Calling Him ‘Disgraceful Pig.’” Deccan Herald, 30 June 2024,
www.deccanherald.com/world/german-court-gives-woman-harsher-punishment-than-convicted-rapist-for-calling-him-disgraceful-pig-3086695.
[9] Jackson,
James. “German Woman given Harsher Sentence than Rapist for Calling Him ‘Pig.’”
Yahoo! News, Yahoo!, 28 June 2024,
www.yahoo.com/news/german-woman-given-harsher-sentence-155055252.html. [10] Diamond,
Dan. “Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More than
Social Distance - Politico.” Politico, 4 June 2020,
www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534.
