Free speech needs saving from the tyranny of woke minorities, Jonathan Sumption has said. Speaking to the New Zealand Free Speech Union, the former Supreme Court Justice said that no one is entitled to intellectual safety as he warned of the devastating impact of “online lynch mobs”. Here’s an excerpt of his talk, as published by UnHerd.
John Stuart Mill anticipated many things, but he did not anticipate the internet. Social media can conjure up instant online lynch mobs. They make a powerful amplifier available to the most intolerant strands of opinion. The algorithms which determine what material is placed under people’s noses expose them only to sentiments which they already agree with, thus intensifying their opinions and eliminating not only dissent but even nuance and moderation. Mill assumed that the pressure to conform would come from self-righteous majorities. But social media has conferred immense power on self-righteous minorities, often quite small minorities.
The most remarkable illustration of this is the vicious campaign currently being conducted to silence those who believe that gender is based on an immutable biological fact. Polling evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of people believe that gender is determined at birth and cannot be altered by medical or surgical intervention, let alone by simple choice. That view is consistent with the current scientific orthodoxy, which regards gender as binary. Yet pressure from a noisy minority has created a situation in which the public expression of the prevailing and probably correct view about gender can lead to dismissal from employment, the cancellation of speaking engagements and publication contracts, and an avalanche of public shaming and abuse.
John Stuart Mill taught that the only purpose for which power might properly be exercised against individuals against their will was to prevent harm to others. But what we are presently witnessing is a subtle redefinition of the whole concept of harm to include the harm said to be caused by having to endure contradiction. The argument is that words wound, especially when they relate to another person’s identity or status; a university or a workplace where a person is exposed to disagreement must therefore be regarded, in the standard catchphrase, as ‘unsafe’.
The difference between violence and words is obvious. Violence is coercive. Words, even if offensive, are not coercive except in those cases where they are calculated to provoke violence. Yet in North America, Britain and much of the Anglosphere, this notion of harm has captured institutions. Recent research in the United States suggests that 29% of university professors have been pressured by university authorities into avoiding controversial subjects; 16% have either been disciplined or threatened with discipline for their words, their teaching or their academic research, while another 7% say that they have been investigated. Those working on any subject involving ethnic or religious sensitivities are particularly vulnerable. More than 80% of students report that they self-censor their work for fear of stepping out of line.
Underlying much of this debate is a fundamental challenge to the objective notion of harm. When interest groups object to someone’s opinion, harm is whatever they perceive as harm. It depends on ‘lived experience’, as the phrase goes, particularly when the offended group is an ethnic, religious or sexual minority. The desire to accommodate minorities who feel themselves oppressed is understandable. It assists social inclusion. But carried to its logical extreme it gives them a right of veto, an entitlement to silence opinions. And it is being carried to its logical extreme. In many countries, including Britain, hate speech is in some circumstances a criminal offence or an aggravating factor when accompanied by some other criminal conduct. The British police and prosecution authorities have agreed upon a definition of their own devising, according to which a hate crime means any action which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice. In other words, they have adopted a subjective definition dependent on the feelings of the victim rather than an objective assessment of the words used.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I would argue that the definition of harm hasn’t changed. What has changed is two things.
1. The tolerance for harm is much lower. In the past, you were expected to put up with emotional harm. Not any more.
2. You don’t need to prove emotional harm. Unlike other forms of harm, like physical harm, you don’t need to back up the accusation with proof. So anyone can claim to be threatened, or feel unsafe or any of these new concepts, whether it’s true or not, and very often I suspect, it isn’t.
That’s how I see it.
It’s simple really.
Emotions are valid.
This doesn’t mean they’re right.
This stance – that some people are more “vulnerable” than others, so need extra protection from the law, is a disaster as it has kicked into touch the core basis of our law.
Ille est – We are all equal in the eyes of the law. That of course the secular derivation of “equal in the eyes of God”.
“Hate” crime law, laws based on subjective states are a disaster and had we a real Conservative government, they would have been canned, and the Equality Act (anything but in truth) repealed.
I think this 2min vid of a Christian quoting the bible somewhere in England and getting told he’s committing an offence by the police because some people feel offended is one such example of what is wrong with society. Why is this policeman not telling the whingers that this guy can say whatever he wants and is protected by free speech laws? As has already been demonstrated with loads of these pro-Jihad marches, it’s free speech for all or for none. We can’t be selectively offended now can we?
https://twitter.com/GoldingBF/status/1722633102546424008
Spot on Mogs.
Part of the problem is the poor training of plods – many have bugger all knowledge of the law.
I would’ve said they’re applying the law selectively but they aren’t even doing that are they? Look at the vid I posted of Billboard Chris and his sandwich board that was a red rag to a bull with the terrorist supporters. He’s the one that got warned he was breaching the peace just by bloody standing there! Not the idiots getting aggressive and in his face.
Then there’s the vid of the guys with their Union Jacks at another pro-Hamasshole march. They were told to keep them behind the barrier but when challenged by one of the patriots the pig admitted there was way more of ”them”, waving their flags of Jihad and Palestine, than there were of the guys who were merely showing patriotism. So does this not basically sum it up? The disgusting pigs will always home in on and go after the ones in the minority, because they’re easy pickings, easy to bully and shut down. One single Christian guy gets picked on for quoting the bible, 50,000+ nutters shouting to eradicate the Jews gets the green light. It’s warped AF. 🙁
You do not have to look far to see examples of, a) why nobody respects the police anymore, and b) how not being white gives you a free pass;
https://twitter.com/GoldingBF/status/1722992699110752696
They are experts at interpreting the law now. Which is not their job
…..not just “the Law”….they seem to be over represented by tattooed fully paid up followers of soshul meeeja fashions,trends … a dangerous combination if an ability to think especially laterally is also absent …imho @ “NO”
“The desire to accommodate minorities who feel themselves oppressed is understandable.”
Why?
This is the essence of the whole subject / problem.
Why do WE have to bend over for some self-proclaimed minority?
The real issue Mr Sumption is that self-proclained minorities should be treated with the same respect accorded everybody else in the population and no more. Normal manners will suffice. Dancing around this issue will only prolong the problem.
I agree. The concept of minorities is a bogus one completely made up for political purposes.
It is deliberately decisive, used primarily for the purpose of self victimisation.
Who cares how many of any type of person there is. The law applies the same to everyone, our obligations, our rights should be the same whoever you are.
This idea of identity is a violation and a giant step backwards from the ideals I was brought up to believe in and which I always thought were integral to “western civilisation”. That individuals are judged by their character and their own merits, not by their characteristics of birth.
Exactly.
I have a dream…
I agree wholeheartedly – if Plod interpret the Law if it reflects what goes on in their own headspace, we are at their mercy ( and because “ they” are not the brightest that becomes the world of shit in which we but more evidently “ they” now wallow) … but that is the sole remit of the Courts and (hopefully) independent Judges. The key for me is that if a person can claim “ harm” because of words spoken or written and that claim is upheld by a biased unthinking Plod – it descends rapidly into anarchy I am tempted to say but more so one sided biased and unhinged anarchy: how can that so called “ harm” be avoided? Why should I accord to what someone MIGHT state as harmful – how do I know what is in the mind of someone about whom I wish to be critical; if I address someone as “ he” or “ she” which they SAY is offensive and harmful – so f*****g what – “ if what I “say”,with no intent to do so , but solely as a expression of my right to free speech, offends you – that’s YOUR problem. Jonathan Sumption puts it more eloquently but he is totally right – in my humble opinion which I express very freely.
When violence is done to someone (a red poppy sales person, for example) it is the object of it who suffers. The subject is rarely affected because Nr Plid and Your Honour can’t be bothered.
when harm from words is claimed by the woke, it is the subject is speaker who suffers. And also the population at large who are cowed by it all.
in each case it is the dab, undeserving who win.
Quote
Is he taking the proverbial?
“This rage of a younger generation against their own societies is not wholly irrational. Liberal democracy has always depended on economic good fortune. The turn in the economic fortunes of Western democracies has persuaded a whole generation that they will be the first cohort for many decades who will be worse off than their parents. The postwar generation seems to them to have lived on the fat of the land, deferring intractable issues like climate change, capricious patterns of inequality and poisonous race relations for their children”
This is the full quote referred to by Castorp and having read the article I share the anger.
I am NOT a Sumption fan as I have stated previously on DS. Basically he’s woolly, flaky. To suggest that the post war generations are responsible for non existent problems such as climate change displays either naivety or sheer ignorance on Sumption’s part. Inequalities and poisonous race relations were largely being managed until that evil barsteward Bliar got his hands on the tiller.
Sumption is regrettably a waste of time with an ego far greater than his intellectual output.
You can express that freely – I fundamentally disagree and whilst I do not agree with him absolutely he to my mind is far more right than not … what do you think – or know – what he means by the phrase “ climate change “ ??
Totally agree. If I recall correctly, Sumption was also in favour of vaccine passports.
How is it that such supreme intellects can be so wrong on some things?
Politico sums up the MET Police double standards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoiMnjWrc4
As usual, Sumption is a fountain of wisdom.
At school, my mother taught me “Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you.”
A pity the law doesn´t heed that old adage and Sumption´s wise words.