Free Speech Isn't an Excuse

“I have a right to free speech”

Yes you do.

“Feminism and political correctness are infringing on my freedom of speech”

No they aren’t.

Firstly let’s clear up the technicalities about free speech. In most Western countries, freedom of speech is an accepted right of every citizen, whether written in the US Amendments or implied in the Australian Constitution. It is specifically about your right to speak out against the government, and is essentially the watchdog of governmental censorship.

Governmental censorship.

Governmental.

The right to free speech has nothing to do with your opinions on people, social issues, or your secret affair. It has nothing to do with how either individual people, or society as a whole reacts to your words. Instead, it protects you from governmental persecution for speaking out against them. In countries with free speech laws, we can criticise, protest against, ridicule and defame our governments without fear of being thrown in jail, or mysteriously disappearing one dark and cloudy night. Similarly, the government cannot curtail or manipulate your words through censorship, blackmail or threats.

So hopefully now we have established that the almighty right to free speech exists solely in the political spheres of our lives. Let’s move onto feminism.

With a growing awareness of the oppressions within society, and the gradual emancipation of marginalised groups to speak up about their experiences, we are beginning to reconsider the language we use to discuss social issues. Language is inherently influential, as analysed here, and it comes as no surprise that changing our language is integral to fighting oppression. This very reasonably explains why many feminists aim to create an awareness about the effects of our words, and from there shape social discourse to reflect the end goal of equality. So often people shield problematic opinions with their “right to free speech”, and aside from the fact this shield quite literally doesn’t exist, those opinions can and should be called out in order to further discourse on a topic.

We should be in a position today where instead of being constantly held back by “the devil’s advocate”, we should be able to push our discussions further and further, gradually bringing awareness to more and more issues which have spent literal centuries being silenced. We could never have a powerful and highly respected trans woman receive a prestigious award if we spent all our time having to go back and explain why women are capable of more than cooking and childbearing. It is necessary to push boundaries, because we are most definitely not in a post-oppression society. Refer to the rest of this blog for proof of that one.

And yet often this progress is held back by voices stirring up issues thought to have been left behind in the 70’s. Of course those opinions have a right to exist, but so does criticism of them. In fact, the latter is actually extremely helpful in educating society and shuffling forwards towards the ever elusive post-oppression society.

Even if you wish to argue that this criticism isn’t constructive, there is no denying that criticism of personal or social opinions does not infringe on an individual’s right to free speech.

Being asked to change your language because thousands of people suffer every day from fear and violence because of a history marked by the word “fag” “slut” “n*gger” “trannie” is not reflective of an Orwellian government, and hence does not come anywhere near your free speech.

Being educated on the impacts of microaggressions and being advised to avoid inflicting them does not stump your political right to critiquing the government.

There are many ways to define privilege. One of them is:

Privilege is being in a position where requests from marginalised people to respect and acknowledge their oppression is an inconvenience. 

xx Hannah