Much of the nation is embroiled in a passionate argument over the limits of free expression.
In one flashpoint, 150 influential people, including Margaret Atwood, Wynton Marsalis and J.K. Rowling, signed a letter published by Harper’s Magazine that decried a growing tide of intolerance, wherein those who don’t conform to the accepted ideology of the day are bullied, harassed and even canceled, to use a popular term.
That was followed immediately by a counter letter published on the website The Objective, which was signed by 150 other people. It decried the elite status of those who signed the first letter and focused on the inequities of who gets heard in society.
In another flash point, Bari Weiss, a New York Times opinion writer, resigned in disgust this week, publishing a letter that decried a culture of bullying and harassment at the paper by those trying to enforce a point of view. “Intellectual curiosity is now a liability at The Times,” she wrote.
This, too, has drawn forceful counter-reactions.
Ironically, both incidents illustrate the power of the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free press, as well as the wisdom of the founders who decided to make these into bedrock principles of American liberty.
While we strongly oppose workplace bullying or intolerance toward any sincerely held opinion or belief, the debate over these incidents, no matter how vicious it may become on social media, will in the end enlighten. It proves the need for free expression.
John Milton, a 17th-century poet, author and inspiration for the First Amendment, put it this way:
“And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worst in a free and open encounter?”
After translating several letters written by the French philosopher Voltaire, historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrased what she felt were his feelings on tolerance. “I disapprove of what you say,” she wrote, “but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
It’s a phrase often used to symbolize the spirit of free expression. It does so, nicely.
Americans cannot afford to lose their healthy regard for debate and the clash of ideas. They cannot afford to lose their belief that, in a fair exchange between truth and error, the majority of people will see truth rising on merit and logic. They must not forget that ideas cannot be erased. They may be forced underground, but there they often continue to grow and foment, sometimes in unhealthy ways. If exposed to the light of day, they are forced to prevail or fail against competing ideas.
The current trouble at the Times began when editorial page editor James Bennet lost his job after publishing an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., that called for using the military against rioters. Many staffers at the Times were incensed by the column.
Press freedoms in the United States always have applied mostly to those who own the presses. Certainly, each publication has a brand and voice it works hard to preserve. But op-ed pages traditionally have been places where free expression is encouraged, within some natural limits.
On Deseret News op-ed pages, free and spirited debate over matters of politics and social issues is encouraged within the limits of civility, reasonableness and mutual respect.
Like Milton, we have faith that the current debate eventually will bolster the time-honored freedom to speak freely. We don’t misdoubt truth’s power in a free exchange.
We do, however, mourn those who would try to hurt others for disagreeing.