Taking advantage of free speech

A lurking issue and a risk of preparing a digital marketing plan with social media components that are often not discussed openly is the never-ending threat of racism that is either generated internally or externally. Anyone can easily contribute racist content to any account. According to author, philosopher, and podcaster, Sam Harris, one needs to exert minimal effort to see and read online threats of rape, murder, and other heinous crimes on sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Eventually, the offensive account is closed, but many more equally as horrid accounts pop up in its place. The real-life analogy is a stranger who runs up to you in a public square, throws acid on you, and runs away laughing. Nothing happens to the acid-wielding creep, but you sustain severe injuries. Haidt and Rose-Stonewell (2019), authors, offer a solution they propose all account owners need to be held accountable. Individuals may have an alias or a screen name, but the owner must be one real person, not a bot or algorithm. Admittedly, not the same as Twitter ensuring each account belongs to one real person, but, in the past, a nonprofit in California controlled the administration of domain names and oversaw the addressing system (Raboy, 2006). Thus, it is not implausible for a nonprofit to control a portion of the Internet. Yet, as Haidt and Rose-Stonewell (2019) suggests, confirming one person controls one individual social media account is seemingly an impossible task to accomplish given the millions of users. However, a metaphor is provided (Harris, 2020). It is explained we are going to open a restaurant and call it MacDonald’s. The restaurant will serve millions of hamburgers a day, but MacDonald’s can not guarantee the quality of the meat. Of course, no one would eat there. Yet millions of people go to social media sites daily.

“Exposure to evil can be good for public health” (Peters, 2005, p. 1). Peters (2005) feels vigorous tolerance is an answer to resolve the tension between free speech and racism. He compares the satisfaction of tolerance to the satisfaction of life without sensual pleasures, a religious fast, or exposure to extraordinary temptation where self-control dominates, and no sins are committed. Noble self-discipline is needed to defend one’s enemies (Peters, 2005). Lastly, citizens are supposed to be able to “take” racism rather than see red (Peters, 2005, p. 22). Peter’s concepts are similar to Stoicism, a philosophy that teaches perfect indifference (Couto, week 9). Meaning, everything external is neither good nor evil. “Hence, to the Stoics, both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health [are] equally unimportant.” (Couto, week 9, slide 42). The intent is not to condone or indulge in evil, but to learn how to live in a world with evil and suffering and not to judge it (Couto, week 9). Today, demonstration after demonstration, where local young people tell their heartbreaking racist experiences; it is clear tolerance, self-discipline, spiritual asceticism, stoicism, and “taking it” is no longer enough to end hate speech and heal the victim’s trauma.

Now, the allies of minorities are looking to learn, listen, and act. There are more questions than answers, but researchers White and Crandall (2017) are looking at racism and free speech and offering insight. First, the pair look to the Justification-Suppression Model and two extensions the vicarious justification and delegitimizing suppressors. Next, they examine vicarious suppression using two hypotheses: the ego threat and expressive threat.

To understand the Justification-Suppression Model (JSM), first, the tension between the negative social value of prejudicial speech and the positive social value of freedom of speech is examined. Guaranteeing freedom of speech yet ending racism drifts between a civil dialogue and a speech war. An activist in favour of a "safe space" from racism is attacked by their opponents as comfort-seeking hapless babies, short-sighted and sacrificing freedom of speech. (White, II & Crandall, 2017). The two sides of the war are identified as the classic Left and Right. On the Left, they proclaim “the problem is the offended bystander . . . who would muzzle edgy experimentation and social progress. The Right attacks [the Left] for not recognizing the potential for evil or moral erosion” of hate speech and doctrines (Peters, 2005, p. 9). Both sides are correct. The JSM represents this tension. It looks at the experience and the expression of prejudicialness. The experience is from the standpoint of both the agitator and the victim. The expression is from the perpetrator and their ally, who the researchers believe is equally as prejudiced as the perpetrator. White II and Crandall (2017) look at conscious prejudice only and not unconscious concepts. The researchers believe prejudicialness is either present or absent in the test subjects.

The expression of prejudices is the result of three processes. They are genuine prejudice, suppression, and justification. Genuine prejudices are internal negative thoughts and feelings about a group (White, II & Crandall, 2017). These thoughts and feelings have motivational forces. Justification is a psychological or social process that provides “an opportunity to express . . . prejudice without suffering external or internal sanctions” (White, II & Crandall, 2017, para. 8). Remember, the JSM model occurs in the mind. Thus, to define vicarious justification consider at least two people both who are prejudiced. One person releases their own suppressed prejudices, and the second person, for many different reasons (e.g., sympathy and concern), provides explanations, makes excuses and justifies the behaviour of others as well as their behaviour. Lastly, delegitimizing suppressors means neutralizing the power of social or psychological suppressor (e.g., guilt, shame or punitive action) and expressing racism openly without punishment. Note, prejudice speech is not made acceptable only the suppressors are disarmed.

The researchers bring two salient hypotheses, the ego threat and the expressive threat, to the study’s foreground, and help to further explain racist behaviour. In the first hypothesis, the ego threat, think of two individuals both prejudiced. One person knows they are prejudiced, but the other is naive and does not realize they harbour prejudiced thoughts. Innocently, the misguided soul thinks they are anti-racist. People don’t want to appear prejudiced because it is inappropriate and the naive person’s sense of self-goodness is based on other people’s approval. Because the innocent person is living in line with societal norms, they regard themselves as good. Then a pivotal event occurs. White II and Crandall give the example of a news report detailing the prejudiced person gets fired for tweeting the black lives matter movement is an overreaction. Our innocent naive person feels the same sentiment. Instantly, the naive person’s ego is threatened because the self is implicated when one expresses a view similar to one's one, and the reaction is to defend the other prejudiced person’s words with free speech. Unfortunately, neither corrects the course. The ego threat hypothesis is that vicarious suppression threatens the self-integrity of prejudiced people, which motivates them to justify another’s prejudice to restore their self-regard.

The expressive threat hypothesis states vicarious suppression inflicts harm on a prejudiced person’s authentic self, and they can regain this sense of self-concern by justifying another’s prejudiced ideas. Shifting our attention from vicarious suppression to vicarious punishment, which generates psychological reactance, the researchers tell us people believe they have free will. If it is in danger of being lost, people act to defend or regain that free will. Reactance theory does not explain why freedom is a fundamental Western cultural value. The theory only states an individual’s well-being improves when their behaviours are self-determined and aligned with their beliefs. In individualistic cultures, favourable emotional and intellectual outcomes appear when people express their true feelings and thoughts. Especially, if the feelings and thoughts are difficult to communicate because they are socially unacceptable. When a person’s desire to assert their genuine thoughts is impeded, their response is to rally against the sentiment, politically correct speech or censorship, that is prohibiting them from doing what they want to do.

In conclusion, White II and Crandall (2017) turn back to the tension between eradicating racism, high political correctness, which angers prejudice people, and low levels of freedom of speech. The free speech argument only appears to prejudice people when needed. Racism, freedom of speech, political correctness are complicated. Vicarious concepts of reactance, punishment, suppression, and justification are intricate. Perhaps the ideas are oversimplified, but boiling concepts down helps to answer difficult questions, why are evil, prejudices, and racism able to take advantage of free speech?