Cancel culture warriors will typically defend themselves against accusations that they are trying to limit speech by arguing that, in fact, they want to provide additional opportunities for the right kind of expression. The argument runs like this:
- Every society recognizes that there are opinions which are simply beyond the pale, and should be suppressed wherever possible;
- The decision on where to draw the line is made by parties in power;
- Historically, this has meant that oppressed people have been unable to speak in public;
- The opinions of members of oppressed groups, simply by virtue of their victimhood, are presumptively correct;
- In many cases, they are so self-evidently correct that any opposition to them is clearly an affront to civilization as we know it;
- Putting a limit on this kind of indecent speech is necessary to give the members of oppressed groups the confidence to speak; so
- Therefore, putting limits on indecent speech, as we define it today, actually has the overall effect of increasing speech.
#1 is clearly a correct statement. #2 and #3 may be true in some respects, but they treat moral and cultural questions purely as functions of power relationships, which is not accurate. All of the other premises are, in my opinion, false. No one’s ideas are entitled to any special deference simply due to the identity of the speaker; it is outrageous to suggest, for example, that Judeo-Christian ideas on homosexuality which are supported by scripture and which have been nearly universally accepted for thousands of years are not even worthy of debate; everyone who wishes to participate in a public forum has to be willing to accept a reasonable level of criticism; and moving the window of decency to eliminate the opinions of tens of millions of Americans will only increase anger, not speech.