The belief that ‘Limits on disturbing language could bolster freedom of expression instead of inhibiting it’ often raises eyebrows, especially when stated by academics or progressives. The primary reason for this skepticism among Americans towards the so-called ‘disturbing language’ rules can be pinpointed: dissenting views or perspectives that are not to their liking are often twisted by the Left and rebranded as ‘disturbing language’. Topics like the athletic inclusion of biologically born males in women’s sports or the induction of explicit literature into the school curriculum are often framed as ‘transphobia’ or ‘homophobia’. In the same vein, the Left labels any contradicting argument as ‘inaccurate or misleading information’.
This article introduces a philosophy professor who, in a piece titled ‘Why deregulating online platforms could be detrimental to free speech’, proffers his perspective. This professor posits, despite U.S. free speech legal stipulations, ‘upholding the essence of free speech demands some form of content-specific regulation’. The professor lays special emphasis on the requirement for the citizens of a democratic nation to be independent thinkers and communicators, reinforcing the significance of content-specific regulation in preserving free speech.
Multiple studies have pointed out that the spread of disturbing languages online, especially, and the expansion of online extremism can exert a suppressive effect on online speech by creating an environment of fear and intimidation. Hence, limiting the spread of disturbing language may actually foster freedom of speech instead of curtailing it. Misinformation, that is often difficult to accurately detect online, could likewise hamper the public’s capacity to freely exchange thoughts and critically assess differing viewpoints.
A noteworthy incident involved a public university demanding the implementation of ‘penalties’ for ‘hate speech’. A case taking place in another public university saw the resignation of the student government’s VP due to the refusal of the school administrators to take a stern stance towards disturbing language. The core issue surrounded a discussion titled ‘What is a Woman?’.
In another development a few years ago, an attempt was made by the State House to declare it a ‘crime of malice’ to ‘induce feelings of fear, terror or threat in someone’. However, thankfully, the proposal did not progress into law, failing to secure approval in the Senate. Activist groups in one case at a university demanded that a statement urging students to avoid certain trainings labelled as spreading hate and promoting violence should be decided upon democratically.
Another subject of concern is the use of social media, which already provides users with mechanisms to escape unpleasant or unknowledgeable individuals, namely, the ‘mute’ and ‘block’ options. Alternatively, users could opt for the traditional method: merely dismiss such individuals and turn off their digital devices. Ensuring that this balance between freedom of speech and the restriction of damaging language remains, is central to the ongoing narrative surrounding this debate, between expression and regulation.