A different definition of violence

How do you rein in hateful speech online without overbalancing into censorship? That is Germany’s challenge.

EVAN SEMON/REUTERS/FILE
STUDENTS AND PROTESTERS GATHER AT THE ‘FREE SPEECH ZONE’ AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO’S BUSINESS FIELD IN BOULDER.

There is a profound question at the heart of this week’s cover story by correspondent Kristen Chick and staff writer Sara Miller Llana: What kinds of violence are we willing to accept as a society?

Interestingly, Kristen and Sara’s story is not about guns or gangs or domestic abuse. It is about speech. It is about a German law that, most everyone agrees, addresses a real need yet no one really likes. After all, how do you rein in hateful speech online without overbalancing into censorship? That is Germany’s challenge.

But Germany’s challenge echoes worldwide. This issue is rippling through universities in the United States today. Many students see free speech as less sacrosanct than an individual’s right not to feel attacked or belittled. To older generations, this development is alarming. “Liberal snowflakes” are seen as careening recklessly down the slippery slope of thought police, censorship, and left-wing proto-fascism. Just look at Kristen and Sara’s story. Perhaps the greatest concern about Germany’s law is that it is creating cover for authoritarian regimes to restrict free speech in similar ways. That threat is not to be taken lightly. Free speech is essential to open societies built on individual liberties.

Yet there is a different view, too. What is often lost in the discussion about free speech on college campuses or in a more-restrictive country like Germany is the deeper shift in thought behind such moves. In his book “Enlightenment Now,” Harvard University cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker goes to extraordinary lengths to document the world’s progress against all forms of violence during the past two centuries. To emphasize his point, he notes that many societies are taking action against forms of violence that weren’t even seen as violence decades ago.

“When I grew up, bullying was considered a natural part of boyhood,” he writes. “It would have strained belief to think that someday the president of the United States would deliver a speech about its evils, as President Obama did in 2011. As we care about more of humanity, we’re apt to mistake the harms around us for signs of how low the world has sunk rather than how high our standards have risen.”

The youth of today are clearly attempting to define hateful speech as violence. And Germany has ample evidence to prove the danger of unchecked hate speech. Self-government
is a core human right, but personal liberty has always demanded compromise. No one would argue for the right to murder someone else, though it infringes on personal liberty. The question is always: What does a society agree are the necessary limitations on personal liberty to best protect everyone’s liberties?

That standard evolves as societies evolve. Germany’s law and the conversations on college campuses are evidence of that evolution. Current efforts may well need significant recalibration. But there is also every reason to believe that they are about the elevating desire to make hate and violence unacceptable in whatever guise they take.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.