Does freedom of speech mean you can say anything? When American publishing company Simon & Schuster announced a book deal with former Vice President Mike Pence. Over 200 employees signed a petition calling for the cancellation of the contract. They demanded that the company refrain from publishing books by members of the Trump administration. Following a significantly racist, homophobic, and divisive presidency.
Simon & Schuster CEO Johnathan Karp rejected the petition, responding that to cancel would be an act:
“that runs counter to the very core of our mission to publish a diversity of voices and perspectives.”
In defense of the book deal. Karp insisted to the staff that there would be “nothing discriminatory” in Pence’s memoir. Despite the former VP’s long history of undisguised homophobia.
In a speech in 2006, Pence stated that “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family” in support of legally defining marriage as between man and woman. The petitioning employees of Simon & Schuster argued that Pence, who openly holds the opinion that gay couples indicate social collapse, that being gay is a “choice”, and that preventing gay marriage is “not discrimination but enforcement of ‘God’s idea’” (CNN), should not be published; they feared that giving the platform to such a voice would be “legitimizing bigotry”.
The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) applauded Simon & Schuster’s decision to reject the petition, adding that refusing to publish authors because of their political beliefs would stunt the possibility of “lasting social change [which] comes from vibrant discussion and even bitter debate”—a statement that philosopher John Stuart Mill would greatly support. In Chapter One of On Liberty, Mill’s defense of free speech, he writes that any suppression of free and open discussion is fundamentally wrong. Regardless of whether the contested opinion is true or false.
Mill would therefore heartily approve of Simon & Schuster’s decision to publish Pence’s memoir, homophobic opinions or not; and, in fact, he would take issue with the agreement to withhold discriminatory language from the memoir. According to Mill’s defense of free speech, Pence’s opinion that “gay couples signal societal collapse”. Should not be banned in his memoir because the petitioners will then, by virtue of censorship, lose credibility in their pro-LGBTQ opinion.
Does freedom of speech mean you can say anything?
According to Mill’s defense on free speech, in forbidding the discussion of any opinion, the censor falsely assumes that they are infallible in the truth of their own opinion (15). To be infallible is to be absolutely certain about a belief, to be unable to be wrong about it—in other words, to be God. To understand why human infallibility is unattainable, let us consider our thought processes when we go to the grocery store to buy food.
We are reasonably confident that the store will have food when we get there, but there is a chance—however unlikely—that we are wrong. However, if we required infallibility of our opinion that there will be food at the grocery store. We would never be justified in going to the store, because there is a possibility that every last bit of food has already been bought. If we never went to buy groceries because we weren’t absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, certain that there would be food there, we’d die.
In the same way, humans can never be infallible about any of their opinions.
Therefore, a standard other than infallibility is required for justification of an opinion: unrestricted opportunities for free and open discussion. Mill establishes the connection between censorship and the assumption of infallibility by showing that the only way humans are able to arrive at any truth is by allowing for “complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion” (16).
Therefore, when a group of people silences the opinions that counter their own—such as by preventing the publication of Pence’s memoir because of his homophobic opinions—they lose the very ability to justify their own opinion because they can no longer listen to and push back against counterarguments.
According to Mill, allowing Pence’s book to be published with any opinions he chooses to express is required so that opinions in favor of LGBTQ rights and protections can be proven true.
The petitioners would object that opposing Pence’s publication is not in assumption of their infallibility of the opinion that queer people deserve equal rights, or any other opinion in opposition to Pence’s. They oppose the book deal because the publication of such opinions would put queer people directly in harm’s way by laying the groundwork for future anti-LGBTQ legislation, emboldening the anti-LGBTQ crowd, and sending the message that homophobic ideas are worthy of recognition.
Throughout the term, the Trump administration has directly endangered queer people (among also people of color and immigrants); to publish the opinions of a leading member of such administration, the petitioners feared, would cement these bigoted ideas and create lasting damage on society. They would argue that the benefits of suppressing virulent opinions are worth of consideration.
Does freedom of speech mean you can say anything?
Certain beliefs, such as the one expressed in the US Declaration of Independence. That “all men are created equal”—are so essential to well-being. That they do not have to be held to such an impossible standard as infallibility (18). The petitioners would further argue that “none but bad men (such as Pence) would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs” (16), and there is nothing wrong with silencing Pence’s memoir. It would not be claiming superiority of the pro-LGBTQ opinion. But conscientiously making the most beneficial decisions for society.
Which is to block the memoir of an open homophobe from publication in the best interests of the queer community.
Mill, however, would answer that even still, blocking publication is assuming infallibility—just about something else. Now, the assumption has simply been shifted from the truth of the opinion to the usefulness of it. Because “the usefulness of an opinion is itself a matter of opinion” (19). And truth of the opinion is also part of its usefulness. It remains that to censor is to play God. And undermine one’s own opinion, and even lose the meaning behind the opinion.
Even if the petitioners’ opinion that queer people’s entitlement to equal rights is true. If the necessity to defend this belief becomes obsolete by censoring homophobic opinions. Then “gay rights” becomes nothing more than empty words which lose their meaning over time. Mill would argue that because Pence is not directly inciting harm through his memoir. It is well within the former VP’s right to express his opinion. That homosexuality should have legal sanctions for its implications of ‘immorality’ and ‘societal collapse’.
By refusing to publish voices of unpopular opinions and even those that threaten social justice. The petitioners undermine their own arguments in favor of said social justice. And more damagingly, wrongfully exercise the power to silence opinions that they personally do not agree with. What would happen if publishing companies began only printing books that the staff members at the time deemed agreeable? The loss of truth, fair access to information, and freedom of expression.
Does freedom of speech mean you can say anything?
I agree with Mill on most of his points. But come to a disagreement with his position on the withholding of discriminatory language in Pence’s memoir. The act of canceling the book is an act of censorship. And we must protect everyone’s right to free speech in order to speak freely ourselves. By morally tasking publishing companies to decide what opinions should merit publication and made available for open discussion. We surrender to them a very dangerous power over our conversations. This has serious consequences for discourse about any contentious opinion, as well as establishing the dangerous practice of silencing unpopular voices. We do need access to all available opinions to better understand our own.
However, Mill does not comment on the possible danger that comes from expressing certain opinions. Especially those which directly threaten the rights and even lives of specific groups of people. For example, racist, sexist, and homophobic opinions. There are opinions that society has the duty to declare unacceptable. Mill, in his defense of free and open discussion. Neglected to make an exception for opinions which question the fundamental human rights of identifiable groups of people.
Discussions on why gay people shouldn’t have the same legal rights and protections as heterosexuals already, unfortunately, exist; adding the voice of a former Vice President only emboldens this opinion and further endangers the queer community. Therefore, I believe that in some cases, censorship, such as the condition of non-discriminatory language in Pence’s memoir, is necessary. He has the right to publish a book that doesn’t contain homophobic opinions.
Does freedom of speech mean you can say anything? by Jacqueline Kim
Back To News
Does freedom of speech mean you can say anything?
