In monotheism, the devil possesses only the power that God permits. Analogously, words—criticism, insults, and labels—possess only the power we grant them. (See Sacred Words—Presumed and Actual Power.)
This raises a fundamental question: who, then, acts as the god in the governance of language? Will it be the people themselves—the authors of history—or an authority that assumes the role of commissar, disciplining and punishing individuals for their words? And who, precisely, would that commissar be? Is there anyone you would trust with such power? Put more plainly: who do you wish to be your master—yourself, or someone else?
When we internalize negative words, they may wound us; when we acknowledge them without allowing them to define us, they lose their force. The power of language is not intrinsic but relational—it arises from the interaction between speaker and listener. If we wish to nullify hurtful words, we need only refuse to grant them authority over us. A mature person has developed the capacity for tolerance. In a free and open society, this choice belongs to the individual. In a totalitarian society, it is made by someone else.
With power behind them, those with authoritarian ambitions teach people to fear words by making them psychologically fragile—by persuading them that they are incapable of deciding for themselves how language should affect them. Children are no longer taught “sticks and stones may break bones…”; instead, they are taught to experience speech itself as a form of violence—but only the words that those who are teaching them identify as such. To a significant degree, those in charge of children are government agents. Teachers, for example. Many teachers, working from curricula and pedagogical practices designed to this end, make children fragile.
This has been true for a long time. More recently, the public has learned that physical violence is a just means of suppressing speech that offends certain people. We see this, for example, in the case of a white woman who calls a black man a derogatory name at a traffic dispute. The black man renders her unconscious with a fist—a homicidal act praised by progressives on social media. Those who glorify the man’s actions say she deserves the violence he visits on her. We see the same thing with transactivists, who target with harassment, intimidation, and violence those who refuse to affirm their delusions (namely, lesbians and proponents of women’s rights). When they aren’t using violence, the transactivists are demanding institutions punish those who refuse to misgender them.
The selection of words to be restricted, or those that justify violence, is determined by particular groups. The rules are windows to power.
I’ve been called an Islamophobe, a racist, and a transphobe. Yet I choose not to be affected by those words (although I am harmed by those who attempt to discipline or punish me for my opinions). But even if I were offended by these words, nobody would think that those who smear me with them are justifiably disciplined, punished, or subject to violence. Such selectivity tells us who controls the narrative. They are not those who believe words are just that: words. They are those who treat some words as worthy of punishment, even violence.
When an authority laces words with coercive power, the result is not freedom and openness but an illiberal, authoritarian condition that suppresses both. The policing of speech, therefore, exposes a problem that liberals—those committed to a free, open, and tolerant society—must confront. If they don’t, they will find themselves living under conditions of unfreedom.
Years ago, I said that our defense of free speech must become obnoxious. A colleague who understood me pinned it to her office door. I stand by what I said. Be obnoxious. Disobey the thought police. Don’t stand for government and public institutions telling you what to say; they don’t believe in liberty. They are the enemies of freedom. We must be in command of words if we are to freely express our conscience, which is our right. Without that, we are not individuals.
But no one has the right to freedom from offense. It’s an individual’s choice to be offended. No one should expect that the government will police words that some individuals find offensive. Their stunted capacity to tolerate the expressions and opinions of others, whatever the cause of their immaturity, is neither the fault nor the responsibility of those who use words. Offense-taking is on the offense-taker.
freedom and reason 