Free debate

My opening remarks from an Adam Smith Institute debate on ‘cancel culture’

I’m going to start by setting out two reasons why free debate is essential to democratic society, and then I’m going to add a quick caveat about the need to remain aware of context.

Ok, so the first reason we shouldn’t do down free debate relates to its value. You’ll have seen this stupid idea going round that debate harms the disadvantaged. Now, as soon as you think this idea through, you’ll realise it’s really very regressive and dangerous. Because, when free debate is shut down, the most powerful win every time — the strongest, the richest, the ones with the most connections, the ones who can punch the hardest, basically. And then, who loses? Well, those disadvantaged people, for sure — the ones you’re supposedly seeking to protect. Shutting down debate, in other words, does not lead to equity.

Now, that’s not to say, of course, that we shouldn’t press for ways to enable more people to enter into debate, more fully, and more able to represent their own views — by improving education, or cutting corruption in politics, and going down hard on rent seeking. We definitely should. But, don’t level down! And don’t lose sight of the fact that moral truth — which benefits everyone, and often particularly the oppressed — can only be sought by proper arguments about values, in which we freely expose our ideas to each other.

It’s dangerous and counterproductive to forget these things. And, usually, when they disappear in a society, it’s not because they’ve been forgotten. It’s because getting rid of them — getting rid of free debate — benefits evil people, like dictators.

Now, secondly, beyond this point about value, it’s clear that to suppress debate is simply wrong. To do so violates various rights we all have, equally, as members of a democratic society: these include the rights to free speech and association, and also the right to democratic deliberation: to participate substantively in the way in which our country is run. And that doesn’t just mean voting once every few years, it means protesting, and proposing, and debating, and writing, and thinking, and speaking, and so on.

Ok, so there’s my quick case: debate is valuable, and debate is required. But now, I’m going to add a caveat about context and focus — based in the recognition that it’s simply not the case that every instance in which I don’t get to speak, where I want, when I want, to the extent I want, is a suppression of my free speech.

Living in formal political society, with other people as our equals — which is surely what we believe, if we are liberals — means that there are many instances in which I shouldn’t do something that I might want to. Now, some of these shouldn’ts are determined by law — law, which, in a democracy, should have arisen by legitimate means. According to the law, for instance, I can’t barge into your house at 3am by picking the locks, or smashing the windows, and force you to listen to me give a two-hour lecture on Thomas Hobbes’ love of tennis — no matter how great I think my thoughts on that topic are.

And then, crucially, some instances — some shouldn’ts — are outside the purview of the law. If we believe in decency and respect, for example, then I shouldn’t taunt you about the fact that your new haircut looks really stupid, and has aged you by 20 years overnight. Now, that shoudn’t definitely shouldn’t be a matter for the state, however — we don’t want a haircut-kindness regulator, do we? Nonetheless, it is simply the case that I shouldn’t do it. It’s also the case, however, that by not doing it — by choosing not to, and by choosing instead to act as a decent person, as a good friend — is not to have my speech suppressed in some illegitimate way.

And those are just two quick examples. We have to differentiate, in other words. We have to think about context. About who it is who makes the relevant choices, and who it is — if anyone — who should step in when we make those choices in ways that break laws, harm others, fail to track the truth, and so on.

In other words — while, of course, it’s embarrassing and deeply wrong that it often feels as if our great universities are leading the fight against free debate — a university society simply doesn’t have to invite every single one of the 7.5bn people alive today to speak at their event on poplar trees. And a newspaper doesn’t have to publish a different opinion piece, every day, written by your granny. No matter how great she might be — it doesn’t have to do that. Choosing is fine!

But actually making these choices always comes in a context of shoulds and shouldn’ts. And some people, some institutions, have special obligations in the context of some of these choices — relating to what it is they do, the societal privileges they hold, and so on. News publishers have special obligations, for instance, relating to the need, in a democracy, for accurate information. And educational institutions have special obligations, related to their purpose and power, including, of course, who it is they’re teaching, and whether they receive taxpayer money.

Now, some of these special obligations do reflect the need for free debate. And some of them do correlate with the rights I mentioned earlier, such as the right to free speech, and to democratic participation. But some of them don’t. Some of them are matters for law; some of them aren’t. And it’s really so important that we remember these kinds of distinction. Not least, because, if you bloat an issue — try to find instances of it everywhere — you risk undermining it. And, also, once you bring the state in, it can be pretty hard to get rid of it..

It’s clear that debate is essential to a good, free society. We need to think hard, therefore, about what that really means.