| Reading about some of the recent attempts to punish antigay speech, I'm struck by the certainty that such attempts must rest on. Obviously gays can't or shouldn't be reoriented to becoming straights. Obviously gays aren't more likely to be child molesters than straights. Obviously being gay isn't a choice. The funny thing is that 30 years ago, the dominant view in society, as best I can tell, was the opposite: People were just as certain about lots of moral and pragmatic assertions suggesting that homosexuality is evil and harmful. At times, they were quite willing to suppress pro-gay speech on those grounds. Why? Well, it's obviously false and evil, so why not suppress it? Today, we have the same thing, though directed at speech that 30 years ago would have been seen as obviously true. Now as it happens I do generally oppose antigay laws; my very tentative sense (I've done no real reading on the subject) is that most gays generally can't talk or think themselves into being straight; and I have no reason to think that gays are any more likely to be child molesters than straights. But I can't possibly muster the confidence needed to say that these views are clearly true, to the point that expressing the opposite view should be banned (even if I thought that in principle false views ought to be prohibitable). Even if I'd done lots of research on the subject, I still highly doubt that I could have that confidence. If everyone was so badly wrong 30 years ago, why can't they be badly wrong today, too? Now naturally sometimes we have to act even in the face of uncertainty. But restricting people's speech doesn't seem to me to be such an area. In fact, it is precisely by leaving speech unrestricted that we can be most confident that we've figured out the right answer. Which would you trust more: A broadly shared judgment that gays are not more likely than straights to be child molesters, reached after a debate in which both sides were free to present their best arguments? Or a broadly shared judgment that gays are not more likely than straights to be child molesters, reached after a debate in which people weren't allowed to express the contrary views? Yes, I know, John Stuart Mill said it earlier and better, and so did Justice Holmes. But it's worth repeating in every era -- especially when examples such as the attempts to suppress antigay speech surface. The victories of the gay rights movement came through free speech; free speech helped us, I think, come closer to the truth there. Are we really sure that we've now figured everything out? Are we sure, for instance, that gays can't become happier by becoming straight? Again, I doubt it. But how can we have any confidence in our estimation if one side is prevented from expressing its views? This all reminds me of a quote that was doubtless said in a different context, but that still seems apt here: Cromwell, writing to the Church of Scotland, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Good advice in lots of contexts, but especially when speech is being condemned as so obviously false that it deserves to be suppressed. -- Posted by Eugene Volokh to The Volokh Conspiracy at 11/11/2003 04:23:00 PM Powered by Blogger Pro |
