“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.”—George Orwell (1949)
“Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”—George Orwell (1946)
“Doublethink” is a concept introduced by George Orwell in his 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. It refers to the ability of the citizens of Airstrip One, in Oceania, primarily members of the Inner and Outer Party, to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and to express belief in both in what ego and alter perceive to be equivalent degrees of cogency. (I have discussed Orwell’s work before on Freedom and Reason, e.g., here, but in many other places, as well. The moral outrage that runs through his work should move every thinking person today.)
George Orwell (1903-1950)
Doublethink is a method of controlling the thoughts of the masses that allows the Party to change the “truth” without objection or resistance; citizens are taught to accept whatever the Party says, even if it contradicts what they can see with their own eyes. If the Party claims that war is peace, citizens must believe it to be true, even if they know that war is destructive and violent. Doublethink finds individuals believing that surrendering personal freedoms to the state frees them from the burdens of making decisions and taking responsibility for their own lives. Doublethink has individuals believing that by remaining ignorant of or not questioning the actions of states or other powerful entities, citizens are actually better prepare to live a good live and negotiate the world around them.
Examples of doublethink abound: the advocacy for universal basic income; the demand that people unquestioningly follow public health mandates; the conviction that all gods are mythic except the god in which they believe; the view that shutting down the speech of others is an expression of the free speech right; the view that individuals should be free from having to live according to the designs of others while believing that others should be compelled to live under their design.
With the release of video from the January 6, 2021 event at the Capitol, we are now being told to disbelieve what we can see with our own eyes.
Jacob Chansley was arrested January 9, 2021 and has been in custody ever since. He pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia on September 3, 2021 to obstruction of an official proceeding and was sentences to 41 months in prison. Judge Royce Lamberth also ordered him to pay 2,000 dollar in restitution. After his release from prison, he will also serve a period of three years of supervised release. However, the video kept from the public and from Chansley’s attorney shows two Capitol police officers escorting Chansley around the building.
The video also shows Officer Brian Sicknick, whom the public was told was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, walking around the building unharmed. In fact, the five officers the public was told died that day did not in fact die that day. What we are witnessing is the remarkable ability of people to manage these facts alongside the belief that Chansley lead an insurrection on January 6 in which five police officers were killed. That’s doublethink.
Doublethink is facilitated in Nineteen Eighty-Four through the use of Newspeak, a language designed by the Party to limit the range of thought and expression making it effectively impossible to articulate and often to even think dissenting thoughts. In Orwell’s work, Newspeak eliminates words related to democracy, individuality, and liberty and instead promotes words that support the Party’s propaganda. The goal of Newspeak is to create a language in which all thoughts are pre-approved by the Party and dissenting ideas are difficult to express and to be understood. It is the way Newspeak works to limits discourse citizens are capable of having that makes it a useful metaphor for describing the current situation.
Newspeak is the work of the Ministry of Truth, one of the four ministries that make up the ruling government of Airstrip One. The Ministry of Truth is responsible for controlling the Party’s version of reality and maintaining the apparent integrity of its propaganda through the manipulation of historical records and the news. The ministry employs a staff of bureaucrats drawn from the Outer Party who are responsible for revising historical documents, newspapers, and other sources of information to conform to the Party’s current version of truth. By controlling the meanings and usages of words, Newspeak makes it easier for citizens to hold and express contradictory beliefs without realizing it.
One can see the idea of Newspeak percolating in Orwell’s mind in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language,” published in the literary magazine Horizon in April 1946. The second quote at the top of this blog is from that essay. Recall the last sentence of that passage: “Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.” Now consider the construct “gender affirming care.” Consider this euphemism especially in light of the last sentence from the above passage and then search Google for images to see what the euphemism to which they mean to blind you. You will not be able to unsee the reality. (You may have to hunt for the images. Google has algorithms.)
Orwell writes, “Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.’ Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: ‘While freely conceding that the Soviet régime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’”
For most citizens of Airstrip One, doublethink and the political use of language work as reflex action. Those for whom they don’t are sent to another of the four ministries of Airstrip One, the Ministry of Love. The Ministry of Love is a place of oppression and terror where people are imprisoned and tortured for “thoughtcrime,” i.e., independent or rebellious thoughts that challenge the Party’s authority and question the prevailing ideology. Through surveillance networks and a web of informants, the Ministry of Love maintains records of citizens’ thoughts and monitors their activities. (In our situation today records of citizens’ thoughts are monitored through their voluntary submissions of those thoughts to social media platforms. Because of the isolated nature of bureaucratic structures, this is the way we at the same time build mutual knowledge.)
Part of the reflex action manifests itself in the ritual of the “Two-Minute Hate” in which citizens watch a video that depicts the Party’s enemies, with a focus on Goldstein, a former member of the Inner Party who has now become a symbol of dissent. During the ritual, citizens are expected to express their hatred and anger towards Goldstein and the other enemies of the Party. The purpose of the Two-Minute Hate is to manipulate the emotions of the citizens and reinforce the Party’s control over their thoughts and feelings.
By encouraging the citizens to express their hatred and anger towards a common enemy, the Party is able to create a sense of unity and solidarity among its members, while also diverting attention away from the real problems and issues that affect their lives. We see this phenomenon in contemporary America in the outpouring of hate towards Donald Trump, what has been dubbed Trump derangement syndrome (TDS). But other enemies are also the focus of the ritual. Tucker Carlson of Fox News is the most common hate focus today. Carlson is in possession of the video evidence exposing the propaganda of the Party concerning the events of January 6. Citizens are not to believe the video he shows because they hate the messenger. This is the function of hate.
The concepts of Nineteen Eighty-Four serve as a warning about the dangers of totalitarianism and the importance of critical thinking and free thought in maintaining a free and democratic society. By not becoming caught up in irrational exercises, citizens can calmly and logically think their way through argument and evidence and arrive at reasonable positions.
As much as we might wish that the practice of doublethink exists only in Orwell’s dystopian world, it is in operation everywhere today. Below is a terrific example of doublethink in action. Be sure to take note of the man’s use of the word “accountability.” I will be discussing this matter in the balance of this blog entry.
* * *
I’m going to publish more blog entries critical of queer theory and trans-activism. These will be in the spirit of my critiques of critical race theory and anti-racism, so they’re sure to arouse passions. They will fall within the scope of several blog entries already penned and distributed. They should not therefore surprise anybody. But they will. This is because my thoughts represent independent or rebellious thoughts that challenge the Party’s authority and question the prevailing ideology. My speech is heretical, contradicting the prevailing doctrine. This makes me a bad person, a person worthy of bad names.
Without getting into the substance of my critiques presently, there’s a matter that needs addressing upfront if we’re to defend the principles that allow human beings to make critiques without fear of discipline and punishment—this word “accountability.” We may be bad people who deserves to be called bad names (from one or more standpoints I am one of those persons), but if we are not being disciplined or punished, we continue to live freely. However, there are those who wish to discipline and punish us for the things we say. They dress up their illiberal desires in the language of accountability in order to appear as if they are not in fact illiberal. This isn’t true of all the authoritarians out there. Some openly reject the principles of civil and human rights.
I’m sure readers have seen these memes that state in so many words “accountability is not cancel culture.” The memes are wrong. Accountability is cancel culture. We use that term all the time without defining it. So what is cancel culture?
The term “cancel culture” has its origins in Black Twitter, first used in the early 2010s to describe the practice of calling out individuals, typically public figures, for problematic behavior or statements and then boycotting or “canceling” them as a way of expressing disapproval. For those readers who don’t know what Black Twitter is, this is a community of black users who dwell on black culture and identity. This is the source of hashtags that have become—aggressively pushed out by corporate state media, the culture industry, and educational institutions—popular touchstones, e.g., #BlackLivesMatter. So you can already see that we have a problem.
Cancel culture gained broader purchase in society as social media became more widespread and enabled broader participation in the practice of calling out what busybodies and moral entrepreneurs identified as “problematic behavior,” thereby conflating speech with action. Cancel culture involves a variety of phenomena, including censoring, deplatforming, and the withdrawal of support from public figures. These actions are not only carried out by the users of popular culture, but are also carried out by the private and public sector entities that manage culture, produce knowledge, and control the flow of information.
“Accountability,” on the other hand, refers to the obligation or responsibility of an individual or organization to account for actions and decisions. Put simply, accountability involves being answerable and responsible for one’s behavior and to be willing to explain and justify them to others. However, the right of an individual to freely express his beliefs, observations, and opinions is not subject to accountability—at least not in a free society.
This equivalency is not merely an error. It is an indicator of authoritarian thinking. If I hurt somebody physically, then I can be held to account for my actions. The harm caused by my action is not entirely subjective, but to some significant extent objective—and it must be, or must have intended to be, to be actionable. On the other hand, if I hurt somebody’s feelings with an observation or remark, the effect is entirely subjective; the observation or remark lands differently depending on the person’s sensibilities, which I do not control and for which I am not responsible.
The above clip, where the young man defends the human right of those destroying a Bible yet finds it not only appropriate but it seems necessary to punish those who destroy a Koran, illustrates the distinction perfectly. The selective outrage proves the fact of subjectivity. There is no demonstrable objective harm. It depends entirely on a loyalties. We don’t defend the right to destroy a Bible on the basis of how we feel about Christianity. It is not up to the state or any other powerful entity to tell us how to feel about Christianity. We defend the right to destroy a Bible precisely because it is not up to the state or any other powerful entity to tell us how to feel about Christianity. What the young man is saying is that, depending on the ideology, a person may be punished for his expression—and smeared as a racist.
When speech is conflated with actions and decisions that actually affect people, accountability becomes a euphemism for cancel culture. This is the Newspeak function of reducing one’s capacity to think. Moreover, it allows for the content of speech to determine whether the person can speak not the principle that people can speak regardless of the content of their utterances. It means that there are people—commissars—who are appointed to determine what can and cannot be said.
* * *
I discussed this clip in a previous blog, A Mass Experiment in Gaslighting. I noted there that Deeming exposes Rice as engaged in doublethink. Rice finds it psychological abusive to permit a person to tell a biological fact without considering that it is psychological abusive to make a person deny a biological fact. Flip over her doublethink to get the gravity of her thinking. Imagine forcing a trans woman to say that she is a man. That would be wrong. Obviously. That would be an oppressive act. So why is it not also an oppressive act to force a woman to say that a trans woman is a woman?
What is at stake here is something of much greater concern than trans women not having to be confronted with psychological distressing facts. Equally applying the principle that would compel a woman to say that transwomen are women would mean that trans women would be compelled to say that they are men in order to save another person the psychological stress of hearing her say otherwise. If we are not to have the state determine for us what we must believe, and this is the essence of cognitive liberty, then those who believe a person cannot change their sex must be afforded the same right to do so as those who believe a person can.
Doublethink in this instance reveals a matter of substance we must note here. Those who would compel others to affirm their beliefs do so out of a desire to control the minds of those they seek to compel. This is a desire profoundly authoritarian in character. It is of the same character as the Muslim demanding the infidel affirm the truth of the Koran. Such a demand reflects the insecurity that underpins the demand for conformity—and the desire to destroy those who do not conform. As Erich Fromm pointed out in his Escape from Freedom, the conformity or destruction dynamic is a hallmark of the authoritarian personality.
According to Fromm, there is a pervasive fear of freedom in western societies, a result of the individual’s inability to cope with the uncertainty that comes with freedom. In order to escape this anxiety, individuals often adopt conformist attitudes and behaviors, and seek out conformity and sameness in others. Not all individuals, of course. But enough of them to have an effect. These are those who have not managed to cope with the situation of freedom. They cannot abide by the fact that others do not think as they do. So they lash out. We see this in the actions of Antifa, which is at its core a trans activist countermovement against liberal society. As Fromm points out, the demand for conformity among those who fear freedom is the root of many of the social and political problems that plague modern societies, including authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Why is anybody compelled to affirm the trans woman? If the trans woman is a woman, she does not depends on others to affirm her gender. The tolerant Christian does not need those around him to affirm his belief in the soul and his religious commitments. The trans woman offended by those who do not affirm her belief depends on the affirmation of others. Here’s a person seeking to enlist others in validating her delusion—in the same way a Muslim unsure of the truth of his beliefs cannot tolerate the infidel. If this trans woman enjoys the force of the state at her back, just as the Muslim does in several theocratic countries, then nobody lives in a free society but a tyranny that demands everybody accept its doctrine. This situation is the diametric opposite of freedom.
* * *
President Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association on News Year’s Day, 1802, recalling with “sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’” thus establishing a “wall of separation between Church & State,” notes “that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” Jefferson goes on to express his commitment to upholding the principles of the First Amendment, which he believes represents the “supreme will of the nation” regarding to protection of religious freedom. He specifically addresses the question of freedom of conscience, writing, “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
To be sure, there are limits on utterances and religious exercise. But these concern utterances and religious exercise that interfere with the expression of these same rights by others. The claims that one is exercising free speech rights when disrupting a public gathering (the “heckler’s veto”) or that one is exercising freedom of conscience by forcing others into the scope of his religious activity (such as a teacher leading students in prayer at a public school) represent a rejection of one’s social duty to respect the natural rights of others. It is a paradox to claim that one negates the right to free speech by the exercise of free speech. Public school administrators should not allow Muslim students to clog the halls during Salah and claim to support religious liberty.
If I am held to account for demanding that public institutions at the very least respect cognitive liberty and freedom of conscience, and it takes no effort to imagine complaints that my references to Islam in forming examples with which to make my points represents acts of Islamophobia, then you will know accountability in this context is cancel culture. A few years ago on Facebook I had several people accuse me of Islamophobia before unfriending me for precisely my criticisms concerning the danger to cognitive liberty and freedom of conscience the practice of cultural pluralism presents—because it lets in Islam.
Of course, because of the long history of irreligious criticism in the West, and the protection of such criticism in the United States thanks to the First Amendment, I am sure that the administrators at my school would hesitate to ask to speak to me about it. In light of what has happened to others at other universities, maybe that’s just my good fortune. But why should it be any different when the criticisms are of the quasi-religions that have proliferated our academic, business, and cultural institutions? Why should one have to speak to an administrator for criticizing Black Lives Matter?
Of course, one shouldn’t—and wouldn’t if administrators upheld the foundational values of a free society. They would know that there is no obligation or responsibility of an individual to account for or to accept any consequences for his speech or his conscience. A free man is neither answerable nor responsible for his utterances. He has no obligation to explain and justify his belief or opinions—or the absence therefore—to anyone. His words are his to do with what he pleases. He is just as entitled to his silence. All this is secured and protected in the foundational law of western civilization.
Based on recent experience, I’m anticipating that administrators where I teach will receive demands to call me to account for things I will have said about queer theory and trans-activism. This has already happened for my criticism of Black Lives Matter and critical race theory. Twice, in fact. If I am being honest, the possibility of having to again meet an administrator does make me fearful; but I’m not going to let that stop me from speaking my mind. I am not going to let the threat of accountability stop me from sharing my views because I know that such demands are motivated by a desire to chill speech. The administration at my school and schools across the nation should recognize this and explain to those who raise complaints the paramount important of cognitive liberty, freedom of conscience, and academic freedom.
* * *
Academic freedom is the principle that members of the scholarly community—professors, researchers, and students—have the right to freely pursue and share knowledge and ideas without fear of censorship, repression, or retaliation. It’s a fundamental concept in modern higher education that supports the free exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth, regardless of political, religious, or other considerations. Academic freedom enables students to learn about a variety of viewpoints and perspectives in an open and intellectually stimulating environment by protecting the right of teachers to challenge established ideas and beliefs, question authority, and engage in controversial or unpopular research.
I have in class, as I have on Freedom and Reason, criticized claims by activists, media, and other scholars that, for example, black males are overrepresented in fatal police encounters because of systemic racism. I have make this criticism based on the well established fact that the democratic patterns are explained by benchmarks (such as rates of serious crime and likelihood of police contact) and situational factors (presence of weapons and eminent threat to life or limb). That students would, on account of finding the facts objectionable and ill-fitted with what they think the aims of the program, seek to hold me accountable, is precisely what academic freedom protects. I am challenging established beliefs and ideas. I am questioning authority. I am engaged in controversial and unpopular research. To do otherwise would be to act as a clergyman. And the university is not a church.
To say that a criminologist should have to waste time meeting administrators over his criticisms of the anti-racist position is to say that Galileo Galilei was properly involved in a controversy with the Catholic Church over his support of the heliocentric model of the solar system over the Aristotelian view endorsed by the church. Recall that the Church, in 1616, issued a decree prohibiting the teaching or advocating of heliocentrism, and Galileo was warned not to support it publicly. The church sought to deter Galileo with its decree. Galileo was undeterred, publishing in 1632 his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which presented arguments for both the heliocentric and geocentric models of the universe. Even giving both sides (which Galileo need not have done), the book was perceived by the Church as an attack on its authority, and Galileo was brought before the Inquisition the following year, charged with heresy and forced to recant his views. He was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life and his book was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, where it remained for two centuries.
Galileo’s conflict with the Church has been seen as an example of the tension between science and religion and the struggle for intellectual freedom. It’s a cautionary tale about the dangers of challenging established beliefs and institutions. The Catholic Church has acknowledged its treatment of Galileo as a mistake. Will the university acknowledge its mistreatment of the many Galileos that it has sought to make accountable for their speech?
* * *
A chill is put in the air when when institutions take actions that discourage or punish the exercise of free thought. A law or policy that effectively criminalizes—or, more accurately or comprehensively, deviantizes—types of speech by imposing penalties for expressing certain opinions can cause people to self-censor.
Business firms and social media platforms develop policies that discourage the exercise of free speech, firing employees for expressing certain views and de-platforming users for violating community standards. This is happening in the public sector, as well. If we allow such threats to deter the exercise of free thought—free as in the absence of costs associated with speech acts—then we participate in our own repression.
The chill can follow something as minimal as letting an employee know that somebody has complained. I’m sure those administrators who talked to me felt they were being accountable to those who complained. The last time I was called to the principal’s office, the matter was framed as a concern with “retention.”
In recent years, universities and other institutions of higher education have come to believe that creating a more inclusive and diverse environment is not only important for promoting “social justice” and “equity,” but also for improving student retention and academic success, concerns that feel more relevant to the enterprise.
They base the push for “inclusivity” on the basis of research that indicating that students who feel a sense of belonging and community on campus are more likely to persist in their studies and complete their degrees. Conversely, students who feel marginalized or excluded are more likely to drop out or transfer to another institution. Thus the present of views that students say offend them or make them feel alienated or uncomfortable need to be curtailed.
Inclusivity takes the form of recruitment and retention initiatives. Universities are actively recruiting and supporting students from underrepresented groups. This is a laudable goal. But what comes with it are impacts on curriculum and pedagogy, Universities are rethinking their curriculum and teaching methods to be more “inclusive” and “culturally responsive.”
The positive spin on this is the inclusion of diverse perspectives and voices in course materials, creating opportunities for students to engage in dialogue and reflection about diversity and social justice issues, and implementing innovative teaching methods that promote active learning and engagement. But the practical reality of these changes is that knowledge is compromised by crackpot theories and students and faculty are forced into situations of compelled speech.
The same is true with initiatives concerning campus culture and climate. Universities are working to create a more welcoming and inclusive campus culture by promoting diversity and inclusion through events, programs, and initiatives that celebrate diversity and promote social justice. This can include cultural and heritage celebrations, diversity and inclusion training for faculty and staff, and other efforts to build a more inclusive community.
The effect of this is the balkanization and tribalization of social life and university programming, with the diminution of the individual the effect.
* * *
As with inclusivity and the goals of retention, accountability is a threat to free speech and freedom of conscience because it undermines the ability of individuals to engage in open and honest discourse and to express their beliefs and opinions without fear of retribution. It treats individuals are personifications of various identity groups. It silos opinions and drives wedges between students and faculty.
Tamping down controversy for the sake of inclusivity is damaging to the enterprise of higher education. Frank discourse is vital to the life of the university—and to society generally—for several reasons.
It allows people to express their opinions and ideas, even if they are unpopular or controversial. Controversy allows people to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate that pushes the envelop, opening up new avenues of thought, fosters intellectual curiosity, and promotes a healthy and vibrant democratic process.
Objectionable and offensive expressions and opinions encourage critical thinking. When we’re exposed to opinions that challenge our beliefs and opinions, we’re forced to think critically about why we hold those beliefs and whether they are worth holding. Being offended is often the first step towards enlightenment among intelligent men.
Hearing diverse opinions and perspectives can broaden our understanding of complex issues and help us appreciate the diversity of human experiences and viewpoints. It promotes tolerance and understanding. When we listen to unpopular and controversial opinions, if we are really listening, we gain a better understanding of the experiences and perspectives of people who are different from us. This can help promote empathy and tolerance towards others.
By better understanding our own opinions, we may be able to strengthen our own arguments.
A healthy democracy requires an engaged and informed citizenry. Hearing and debating diverse opinions helps to ensure that citizens are engaged and informed. Freedom from fear in expressing one’s perceptions helps build mutual knowledge. And that may expose the nakedness of the king.
* * *
The United States Republic was established with a strong emphasis on civil and human rights. Even before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were penned (1787 and 1789 respectively), the colony’s declaration of independence from the United Kingdom, penned in 1776, emphasized foundational human rights, those rights that inhere in all human beings, regardless of their ethnicity, nationality, sex, or other characteristics, realized as such in victories against the forces of prejudice and discrimination, victories owing their success to debate and dialogue.
Human rights include equal treatment under the law, freedom of expression and thought, and security of person. The three identified in the Declaration of Independence (1776) as unalienable are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the committee (comprised of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and a few others) wrote, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable” is subtle but important to clarify, especially in light of the fact that these terms are often used interchangeably. Unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away or denied. In contrast, inalienable rights are rights that cannot be transferred or surrendered to another person.
The committee used the term unalienable in the Declaration of Independence to emphasize the idea that these rights are inherent to every individual and cannot be negated by any government or other authority. Neither public nor private entity can deprive an individual of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. These are fundamental and universal, not granted by any government, but rather recognized and protected by government. The document assert that these rights inhere in the laws of nature. They are organic to our species-being.
Closely related to human rights are civil rights. Civil rights are those rights that are specifically protected by law in a particular society or country. Civil rights may include guaranteeing among citizens equality of the right to vote (itself a political right), such as recognizing the right of women to effectively participate in political and civil life, the right to equal treatment in employment and housing, and the right to access public accommodations. Civil rights explicitly guaranteed in United State law and in precedent.
The foundational rights protected by the First Amendment are both human rights and civil rights in that they are essential to individual autonomy and freedom, and are protected by law in the United States. These rights are seen as fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society and are considered to be a cornerstone of the American system of government.
* * *
I speak often about cognitive liberty and freedom of conscience. Cognitive liberty refers to the idea that individuals have the right to control their own consciousness and to make decisions about what they put into their minds. This includes the right to engage in activities that alter one’s mental state, such as using psychoactive drugs or engaging in spiritual practices, without interference from the government or other authorities.
The idea of cognitive liberty is closely tied to the idea of personal autonomy and the right to privacy, which underpins the Fourth and Fifth Articles of the United States Bill of Rights.
Proponents of cognitive liberty argue that individuals have the right to make their own choices about how to use their minds and assert that this right is essential to personal freedom and well-being. The ability to think freely, make choices, and express oneself without fear of retribution is essential to personal growth and fulfillment.
Freedom of conscience is the right to hold and express one’s own beliefs and values without interference or coercion from the government or other authorities. It is closely related to the concept of religious freedom, but it can also extend to non-religious beliefs.
One of the earliest drafts of the First Amendment proposed by James Madison in the summer of 1789 reads as follows: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
The idea of freedom of conscience is rooted in the recognition of individual autonomy and the right of personal liberty. It acknowledges that people have the right to form their own beliefs and opinions, and to act on them, as long as they do not harm others or violate the rights of others.
In practice, freedom of conscience can take many different forms, such as the right to practice a particular religion, the right to express political opinions, or the right to engage in artistic or cultural expression. It also includes the right to refuse to participate in activities or actions that go against one’s deeply held beliefs, such as participating in military service or providing medical treatment that conflicts with one’s moral or religious values.
Freedom of conscience is enshrined in many national and international human rights documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which recognizes the right to freedom of conscience, religion, and thought as fundamental human rights. These rights are considered fundamental to the concept of individual autonomy and the ability to freely choose one’s own actions, beliefs, and values.
Article 18: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Article 19: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Article 20: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” These articles recognize the importance of individual thought, expression, and conscience, and provide protections for individuals to express themselves freely and associate with others without fear of persecution or discrimination. These rights are essential for promoting democracy, transparency, and the exchange of ideas, which are all critical for the development and advancement of societies.
Cognitive liberty, in particular, is closely tied to the right to pursue happiness, which is one of the unalienable rights identified in the Declaration of Independence. The ability to control one’s own mental life and processes and to explore different states of consciousness is seen as essential to personal fulfillment.
Freedom of conscience is closely related to the right to life and liberty, which are also identified as unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. The right to hold and express one’s own beliefs and values is seen as essential to individual autonomy and personal liberty, and is a key component of a free and democratic society.
This goes to the vital importance and thus justifications for upholding the ethic of free speech, among these the value of democratic participation, wherein free speech is prerequisite for the ability of individuals to freely express their opinions, engage in political debate, and hold their leaders accountable (i.e., checking government power, where free speech is necessarily the protected ability to criticize and challenge authorities, policies, and practices essential for maintaining a free and democratic life); truth-seeking, wherein free speech is prerequisite for free and open debate, so that truth can emerge through a process of critical inquiry and discussion; and as a means of personal self-fulfillment where individuals have the right to express themselves creatively and intellectually, and to share their ideas with others—to grow as individuals and (hopefully) achieve self-actualization.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was formulated in 1789 by the First United States Congress. It was one of several amendments proposed in response to concerns about the lack of protections for individual liberties in the original Constitution—which implied freedom of conscience by forbidding the requirement of any office holder to take an oath respecting the establishment of religion. The First Amendment was intended to protect the fundamental rights of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. Along with the other ten rights in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment was ratified by the required number of states in December, 1791. The ratification of the First Amendment marked an important milestone in the protection of individual liberties in the United States and helped to establish the United States as a leading democratic force in the world.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides important protections for cognitive liberty and freedom of conscience. Specifically, the First Amendment guarantees several freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Freedom of speech is a key component of both cognitive liberty and freedom of conscience. As I have explained, it allows individuals to express their thoughts and opinions freely, and to engage in creative and intellectual pursuits without fear of government censorship or punishment. This includes the right to explore and discuss controversial or unpopular ideas, and to challenge existing beliefs and norms. It is closely associated with freedom of conscience, which refers to the right to hold and express one’s own beliefs and values without interference from the government or other external forces.
Freedom of the press is also important for cognitive liberty and freedom of conscience. It ensures that individuals have access to a variety of viewpoints and perspectives, and can make informed decisions that bear on their beliefs and values. It protects the right to engage in investigative journalism and to hold those in power accountable for their actions. Freedom of religion guarantees individuals the right to practice their own religious beliefs, or to have no religious beliefs at all, without fear of discrimination or persecution. This includes the right to engage in spiritual practices and to explore alternative belief systems. The right to assemble and petition the government is an important component of both cognitive liberty and freedom of conscience. It allows individuals to come together to express their beliefs and values, and to advocate for their interests. It also ensures that the government is accountable to the people and that citizens have a voice in the political process.
Freedom of association is an implicit right protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. While the term “freedom of association” is not explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment, it is generally considered to be closely tied to the freedom of assembly, which is one of the explicitly stated freedoms in the First Amendment. The freedom of assembly clause of the First Amendment guarantees that individuals have the right to come together in groups, whether for associative and expressive purposes, without fear of government interference. This includes the right to participate in demonstrations and protests, to form political and social clubs, and to engage in other forms of collective action. The freedom of assembly and freedom of association are closely related because both involve the right to come together with others for a common purpose. The right to freedom of association allows individuals to form and join associations, groups, and organizations, and to advocate for their shared beliefs and interests. It also includes the right to not associate with others, meaning that individuals have the right to refuse to join certain groups or organizations.
Other amendments in the Bill of Rights near on the question of cognitive liberty. The Fifth Amendment provides protection against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination can be seen as associated with cognitive liberty. Since cognitive liberty is the principle that individuals should have the freedom to control their own consciousness and thought processes, including the ability to freely express their beliefs and ideas without fear of punishment or coercion, the protection against self-incrimination is one of the ways in which the Constitution protects an individual’s cognitive liberty. The protection against self-incrimination means that an individual cannot be compelled to give testimony that might incriminate them in a criminal case. This protection is based on the idea that an individual’s thoughts and beliefs should be protected from government intrusion, and that individuals should have the right to control what they say and what information they disclose.
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is also connected to the concept of cognitive liberty, as individuals have the freedom to control their own consciousness and thought processes, including the ability to privately explore their own thoughts and ideas. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures can be seen as supporting this concept of cognitive liberty by ensuring that individuals have a right to privacy in their own personal spaces and effects. The Fourth Amendment helps to protect against unreasonable government intrusion into an individual’s private spaces, such as their home, office, or personal property. This protection can be seen as an important safeguard against government overreach and abuse of power, which can have a chilling effect on an individual’s ability to explore their own thoughts and ideas freely.
I have the right as a citizen of a free republic with a constitution that enshrines religious liberty and freedom of speech, press, to petition government, to publicly assemble, and association to criticize anything or anybody, nothing or nobody has a right to not be criticized. This includes me, of course. But efforts to compel government institutions to punish me in some fashion for my utterances, whether disciplinary trainings requirements, demotion, withholding promotion, pay raises, termination must be exposed for what they are—authoritarian and illiberal attitudes and actions that are harmful the foundations of the republic. And if the government institutions allow themselves to be compelled to such thing—or if the institutions take it upon themselves to censor speech and punish faculty for utterances, then they are violating my constitutional and human rights. Moreover, the religious character of these ideologies is obvious. But it is not enough that these ideologies enjoy religious liberty. They do not want me to be free from their religious beliefs and rituals. And this is a violation of my rights.
Free speech is generally considered to be a good thing for several other reasons. It encourages creativity and innovation. When people have the freedom to express themselves, they are more likely to come up with new and innovative ideas—and others are more likely to learn about these news and innovative ideas. This can lead to advancements in art, science, technology, etc. As a fundamental human right, free speech ensures that individuals are able to express themselves without fear of retaliation or persecution. Thus defending free speech is protecting individual rights. Free speech allows citizens to holds accountable those in power—this is the real accountability culture we should be pursuing. When people are free to criticize the government or other powerful entities, they can challenge and prevent abuses of power and corruption. By discouraging the free expression of thought, the chilling effect limits the diversity of ideas and opinions possible in a society. This prevents important issues from being debated and resolved in a consensual and democratic manner.
freedom and reason 