The Silent Killer of Speech
The Founders knew that without protections for free expression, freedom could not survive. Benjamin Franklin said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom – and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.”
There has been no greater test of our freedom of expression in our nation’s history than the woke culture that has plagued American society in recent years. While our government has certainly played a role, our institutions outside of government have played a large part in chilling speech.
One could imagine that public discourse travels through a narrow road with two parallel ditches. The trench on one side of the road is coerced censorship, which is exemplified in the woke movement that has plagued modern America. On the other side, lies a silent killer of speech: self-censorship, where Americans silence their own voices to avoid conflict. Often, people avoid the results of the former by choosing the latter.
Ultimately, a woke culture can’t last, because citizens will either end the coercive censorship or they will simply give in. If a contrarian is silenced, it doesn’t matter to the elites which side of the road is responsible. Eventually, there are no contrary ideas left in the flow of traffic.
Many forget that the goal of wokeism isn’t necessarily to change everyone’s thinking – that is not necessary to achieve the desired effect. If you silence disagreement long enough, citizens will respond accordingly, withholding their own speech to avoid negative backlash until the only stated values are eventually those of the elite themselves. If they can choke out the speech, the ideas will die as well.
While it is important to push back against coercive censorship, it is just as important to be aware of our own personal censorship by choice. The latter form is typically not undertaken because of fear, but because of comfort. Yet, prioritizing comfort can often lead to quite uncomfortable results.
A society that is incapable of dealing with disagreement will likely never experience meaningful consensus.
Despite a political climate that is generally regarded as “polarized” and less-than amicable in nature, studies show that many Americans silence their own voices to avoid pushback.
A study by the State Policy Network found that nearly 60 percent of Americans have stayed quiet in a conversation within the last year to avoid conflict. In fact, the top issues that Americans avoid include gender identity and sexual orientation (34 percent), political campaigns and abortion (32 percent), “woke” ideology (28 percent), race relations (27 percent), and guns (27 percent).
In a way, this finding seems to confirm common sense. A verbal filter for our internal thoughts is a good thing. In fact, it’s biblical. Proverbs 17:28 says, “Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.”
We certainly shouldn’t say everything that comes across our mind. Furthermore, in politics, the most effective response can often be to give no response at all.
Many Americans might feel that our problem is not too little expression of speech but too much. However, the Internet has created a false sense of discussion. There is a distinct difference between expression and interaction.
While the Constitution protects free speech, our human nature requires genuine interaction with other human beings to thrive. You cannot have dialogue without free-expression, but you can have free-expression without meaningful dialogue. I would contend that humanity, as a whole, cannot exist without meaningful interaction with one another. For example, mental health professionals predict that the negative impacts of the COVID lockdowns could last for a generation.
From my observation, many Americans feel more comfortable expressing their opinion online or behind a screen than they do sharing their thoughts in person. More plainly, many people aren’t brave enough to say what they post online to someone’s face. Thus, our observance of expression on various digital platforms appears to distort the reality of genuine discussion.
American culture today seems to promote reacting to political disagreement rather than the resolve to persuade the other side to change their mind. There is no greater example of this idea than the toll politics has taken on our interpersonal relationships. A New York Times/Siena College poll found that almost one in five Americans believe that “politics had hurt their friendships or family relationships.” Plus, almost 50 percent of Americans had made judgments about other people based on their political beliefs.
In addition, our beliefs are less likely than ever to be challenged by our news sources. Most people watch news outlets that confirm their core beliefs. Yet, Americans’ trust in media is at record lows. Conservatives trust media even less than the general population, with surveys reporting that conservatives even distrust their preferred media sources more than their liberal counterparts.
With rising suspicion for government and media, and with greater reliance on digital platforms as substitutes for actual dialogue about our pressing issues, we are faced with an important question: could our culture’s avoidance of disagreement actually be creating the very thing that many are trying to avoid, prolonging the existence of conflict within our society?
Each of us should evaluate our own behavior as individuals and the larger role that we can play in persuading other Americans that the ideals of freedom and liberty are actually the best and only way to ensure a bright future for our nation and communities.