Free speech is important, but so is how we practice it
This column is a little different from others I’ve written for Oregon Roundup. It’s not about a specific issue affecting Oregon, but rather about behavior affecting everyone - in Oregon and elsewhere. There’s another difference: We can do something about this behavior ourselves instead of just hoping our elected leaders will do the right thing.
I’m talking about speech - verbal, written and otherwise. The “free speech” debate is having perhaps its biggest moment yet in the wake of the death of conservative influencer and activist Charlie Kirk. It’s an important topic, but one that should be much broader than a debate over the legal and practical applications of free speech.
I’m a firm believer that we should be free to say what we think without fear of government retaliation. That does not mean, however, that what we say is free of any consequence. Those consequences may be loss of friendships, social standing, or even jobs (especially for paid communicators). Any attempt to protect individuals from those consequences likely would restrict, not protect, free speech.
However, there are things we all can do to improve the speech we freely exercise, which in turn could create an environment in which the reaction to speech we disagree with is less extreme.
Here are some suggestions:
Avoid labels and name-calling
I started my first journalism job, an internship at a small paper in Mississippi, in 1980. We were encouraged to avoid labels and to limit adjectives. By the time I left my last journalism job, at The Oregonian, almost a decade ago those standards had mostly faded.
I’m not one of those who thinks “the way we used to do things” always was better. I’d much rather write on a laptop than a typewriter. Video, something I disliked doing, allows for types of story-telling simply not possible with the written word alone. But the old-time standard on labels was correct.
There are many reasons to be careful with labels. Some of the most important:
People, causes or circumstances rarely can be described with just one or two words. For example, I struggled with how to describe Charlie Kirk in this article. He definitely was conservative (though in my opinion not far-right as some mainstream media described him) but was he an influencer or activist? I went with both because he influenced millions through social media while also personally engaging with the levers of political power as an activist. But, ultimately any choice of label is somewhat subjective and can affect the tone of an article.
Labels often are applied to groups of people, but no two people in a group are exactly alike. This is my biggest objection to labels. I’ve lived in eight states and visited all 50. I’ve met different types of people in each of those places, some of whom strongly contradict local and regional stereotypes. Broad labels simply don’t work.
Labels reveal our biases. A common example is the use of labels in the abortion debate. Labeling one group as pro-choice and the other as anti-abortion is an apples-and-oranges use of labels. It should be either pro-choice and pro-life or pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights. I would go with the latter as the most literal and fair.
Labeling often devolves into name-calling. Entire groups become fascists, communists or whatever negative description the speaker/writer prefers. Every battle becomes existential. Everyone who disagrees with us becomes an extremist. This type of labeling and misuse of words devalues language and makes constructive communication impossible.
Don’t assume motives
One of the things I like about writing for Oregon Roundup is that for the most part Jeff Eager and I write about issues without ascribing motives to those involved. The notable exception would be that we both frequently note that Oregon Democrats seek to please public employee unions. But that statement is supported by facts - donations, statements by candidates and union leaders alike and union opposition to candidates who don’t support their platform.
The reason not to ascribe motives is that in most other cases motives cannot be proven. Also, within groups motives vary. In fact, one of the biggest challenges for both political parties is reconciling the motives of their various voting blocs.
Don’t cherry-pick facts
This is a subtle problem. Much of what is written and said in political discourse today has elements of truth (how much depends on the subject) but is incomplete. An example applying to a subject currently in the news:
Vaccines: It’s true some children with autism had vaccines. It’s also true that vaccines have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Neither of those statements, however, answers the question of whether vaccines are worth the risk. Though my personal answer is yes, I would not attempt to answer that question for others without dozens (if not hundreds) of hours of research. And any effort to answer the question in a headline or social media post is unlikely to convince anyone to change their pre-held opinion.
Explain yourself
I did not pay much attention to Kirk before his death. (My age puts me well outside his core demographic.) But like everyone else I’ve seen dozens of video clips of his campus appearances in the past 2 weeks. Whether you are a fan or a critic of Kirk’s views, you have to admit he put a lot of effort into explaining himself. He did not try to win debates merely by yelling louder than his detractors. That was an important example and should be his legacy.
Would doing these things lead to more effective government? It’s hard to say without trying. Policy does matter no matter how you communicate about it. But more civil discourse would improve everyone’s lives without relying on government help.