Submitted to a Candid World

A disturbing trend in the media and political discourse, lately, is the conflation of disagreement with censorship. Free speech protects the right to disagreement and dissent, but to equate dissent which turns into action with censorship is to miss the point. Censorship refers to the use of government power against the individual in the marketplace of ideas. When one idea wins out in the unregulated marketplace, and accordingly edges another out of the marketplace, that’s not censorship. That’s free speech working to ensure that truth rises to the top.

An example: although more than one-third of the audience turned their backs on the travesty, “conservative” hatemonger Phyllis Schlafly was nevertheless honored this past week with an honorary PhD for her efforts, one can only assume, in urging other women to not pursue PhDs. How odd, hypocritical, and sad. Mrs. Margaret Bush Wilson, who apparently disagrees with most of Schlafly’s views, defended her receipt of the honor, equating the gift of the degree with “free speech,” impliedly labeling as censors those who asked the university to rescind the degree.

No. Wilson is using a tortured definition of free speech to suppress the free speech of those who opposed Schlafly. Free speech does not demand that all opinions be given equal weight, nor does it require that bad ideas receive some twisted sort of “affirmative action” to put them on par with good ideas. The point of the free speech, and the point of the marketplace of ideas, is to let good ideas beat bad ideas without government interference. While Schlafly has a right to speak her ideas, she does not have the right to have her ideas given a free forum beyond their merit, nor does she have the right to be free of disagreement and dissent. Free speech demands the exact opposite.

We see creationists using the same argument, accusing scientists of “censoring” creationism and intelligent design. What they’re really demanding is that their poor arguments be given equal treatment, regardless of merit: in effect, they’re asking for a “government handout.” But free speech countenances no interference with the marketplace, positive or negative, and the right to free speech is not a flag to be waved whenever someone faces opposition.