Speech, Violence, Many Sides

Let me begin by saying that I think there is no excuse for someone intentionally driving their car into a crowd of people and that the death of the young woman yesterday in Virginia is a tragedy. Assuming there is no justifiable reason (such as the unlikely sudden onset of a medical episode), then the driver should be punished to the full extent of the law.

The driver.  Not everyone in Virginia or elsewhere who was exercising their right to free speech.

In this country people have the right to express their ideas, regardless of the idiocy, or hatefulness, or un-American sentiments contained within those ideas.  What people may not do is violence against others whose ideas they do not like or who disagree with their own point of view. 

There is a difference between speech and violence.

Many people in this country hold ideas that are offensive to others.  Not everyone agrees with the anti-white rhetoric expressed at some Black Lives Matter rallies.  Not everyone agrees about whether or not statues of Confederate leaders should stand or be taken down.  Not everyone practices the same religion, and some seriously disagree with the beliefs and views and ideas held by religions that are not their own.  Yet, in this country, all those views and more are allowed and can be spoken. 

One basis of this country and its freedoms is the right for people to have differing ideas and beliefs.  When people are allowed to speak these ideas then we have a free marketplace of ideas.  The theory is that the citizenry, being reasonably intelligent human beings, will become informed and will be able to assess these many ideas, understanding which are better and which are worse.  To silence any one viewpoint not only closes the free marketplace and the open-minded freedom it engenders, it also sets the country on the road to a place where only one view, only the “correct” view is tolerated.  That, my friends, is a form of dictatorship.

Today, many points of view become movements.  And no matter how noble the original idea may have been, there are going to be people who attach themselves to the movement whose views and purposes are less than noble.  Those individuals should not be used to condemn an entire movement, nor should any acts that they take be necessarily attributed to the entire movement.

Sadly, we see people today using yesterday’s death to further their own agenda and attempt to silence all those with views not matching their own.  Thus, I have seen photos of the young woman killed by the car posted on social media with words urging retribution against all conservatives, all whites, etc. and many today are demanding that white nationalists and others not be allowed to speak at all.  And yet, I wonder where these same people were when people who had attached themselves to the Black Lives movement assassinated police officers.  I wonder where these people were when someone attached to the Democrat party decided to take target practice on Republicans on a baseball field.  Should then the entire Democrat party be silenced due to that act of violence by one man?  To follow the logic of today’s reaction to yesterday’s act by one man, the answer is Yes.

There are indeed many sides to this culture of violence which, by the way, began well before President Trump took office.  It’s just that during the past many years of the Democrat’s identity politics the hatred seemed to be directed against those with more conservative views and those who were not minorities. Their attempts to speak up were often dismissed as they were labeled as bigots and racists.   And now, when some of those people decide that they, too, have a right to speak, the call is for all to be silenced.  That is as un-American as the hate that many claim spews from their or every privileged white person’s or conservative’s mouth.  Dislike of an idea does not give anyone the right to silence that idea.

Violent action is a different matter.  When words turn to violent acts, those acts must not be tolerated and the perpetrator must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  This includes violent acts coming from the Right and from the Left.  Yes, the blame for our violent culture rests with “many sides.”  When students at Berkeley asserted they had a right to do violence in order to silence conservative speakers, they should have been prosecuted for each and every such act.  And, if a conservative turns words into violent action, he or she too must be prosecuted.  There must be zero tolerance for acts of violence.  But, there must be full tolerance for speech, no matter how distasteful.  A lack of such tolerance can in itself lead to violent reactions from those silenced.  Hence, many sides, indeed all sides, hold some responsibility and some blame.

It seems as if for some time we have been willing to tolerate at least some violence to silence views that are not popular, especially those views that have been unpopular with the Left over the recent years.  This must stop, just as we must stop placing the blame for the criminal act of one on an entire group which happens to hold an unpopular view or to which the criminal actor has attached him or herself.

All sides are to some extent guilty of using rhetoric that is sometimes intense and vicious.  Personally, over the recent years continuing through today, I hear that far more from the Left than from the Right.  I wish that it would stop.  I also understand that in a twisted mind any words can become twisted to justify most any behavior.  But, that does not outweigh the crucial importance of free speech to our democracy. 

This is America.  All ideas are welcome and must be tolerated.  We are free to accept or reject the viewpoints of others, but all those viewpoints have a right to be heard.   What must not be tolerated is any act of violence in the name of an idea, whether that act is spitting on a speaker, or destroying their property, or shooting or stabbing a speaker, or running down a group of followers of an opponent.  In America, free speech is a right of all citizens.  To maintain our democracy we must let others speak and not agitate when they do.  We must listen.  Then, we can speak our own views, including opposing ones if we wish.  And, we must not tolerate violence in any form, even in the name of silencing speakers whom we find offensive.  We must demand that any such violence be prosecuted.  From this peaceful marketplace of ideas and its tolerance for all sides, comes the strength of our democracy.