One challenging aspect of dealing with speech is that it bridges the gap between an individual’s thoughts and their action. Now that everything is so accessible and the internet is everywhere, it’s important to analyze the kind of influence our words have on each other. 

With so much power to connect and communicate in the palm of our hands, we are pushed to be more proactive and to hold ourselves accountable for the kind of discourse that we allow. Consequently, this also prompts us to think of the level of inclusivity that we promote in our social circles.Today, TARTLE looks into the price of putting limits on speech with Jonathan Zimmerman.

 

Is It Time To Cancel Today’s Cancel Culture?

How has cancel culture and the evolution of what it means to secure social justice, particularly in the context of social media and the internet, changed the way today’s generation navigates speech?

“It’s funny, that when we become emotionally charged...logic seems to fly out the door and we forget the reason for why certain fundamentals were in place that, I guess, allow us to be emotionally outspoken,” Jonathan explained on the podcast. 

Today’s cancel culture can be vicious: anybody can be publicly named and shamed for accountability, and boycotting has become a pivotal part of Gen Z’s definition of social justice. This collective action serves as an opportunity for the masses to voice their concerns to public figures — but also to participate in a greater cause from the comfort of their homes. 

In recent times, Jonathan shared how his Trump-supporting students were afraid of opening up about their political beliefs to the rest of the class. This prompted him to implement a meet and greet from students from another college under a premise that they called “the wedding tables model.” 

Students from the University of Pennsylvania would be assigned to sit in circular tables with students from Cairn University. At the center of the room, a carefully selected roster of students from the two institutions would initiate a conversation on their beliefs, which would be on opposite ends of the spectrum. This gave everyone the opportunity to experience opening up to a perceived political rival or enemy — but without the fear of being judged.

Similarly, TARTLE  also gives people an opportunity to look beyond political affiliations. It gives people and entities around the world the platform needed to share data truthfully, anonymously, and securely about themselves so that they may find common ground over time — what it means, Alex says, to be a human being across all the 220 countries on this planet.

 

The Roots of Limiting Free Speech: The Brandenburg Case

In 1964, an officer in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) named Clarence Brandenburg held a meeting with fellow members, in the presence of invited media representatives. 

Here, Brandenburg made several anti-Semitic and anti-black statements; he also made several hints to the possibility of committing “revengeance” if the federal government and the Court continued “suppressing the white Caucasian race.” Finally, he declared that KKK members were set to march on Washington DC, on Independence Day.

While Brandenburg was convicted, fined $1,000, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison, the US Supreme Court later reversed his conviction. It held that a new test, called the “imminent lawless action” test or the Brandenburg test, should be used as a metric for speech.

This new test, which continues to be the standard used by the government to punish inflammatory speech: is composed of three elements: intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness.

Brandenburg’s case was important in enforcing an idea Jonathan mentions in the podcast: that no right is absolute. However, if the state is pushed to limit speech in any situation, it must adhere to an absolutely clear rationale for it.

 

Are Limits To Free Speech, Limits To Peace?

Jonathan pointed out that often, there is plenty of discussion about the legal environment surrounding free speech — but not as much about the educational. With campuses touted as protected areas for speech, he calls for people to be more thoughtful about “modeling a different and a better kind of exchange in our schools.”

In 1965, thirteen-year-old Mary Beth Tinker wore a black armband to school in protest of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam as part of a group protest. She, alongside her brother John, was one of five students that were singled out for punishment. 

Immediately after they were suspended, Tinker reported that her family received multiple threats from the public. Despite the lack of an absolute and immediate threat to learning in the school, the lives of Tinker and her fellow students changed drastically after this simple act of defiance. Incidents like this prompt the need for people, particularly from the younger generation, to have venues where they are free to experience each other’s humanity despite differences in politics. 

  Free Speech Facilitating Self-Reflection

Jonathan shared his realizations about his own prejudice when he came across a religious missionary while volunteering for the Peace Corps in Nepal: when you really get angry with somebody, it's because you see a part of yourself in them that you don't like.

Furthermore, anger clouds the judgment and encourages us to lash out at the individual, instead of the problem at hand. This instinctive emotion pushes us to be aggressive and to defend ourselves against an abstract fear. 

In the podcast, Jonathan posits that increased tolerance for others’ right to free speech — especially from those who hold views and beliefs on the opposite end of the spectrum — is an important part of the authentic human experience because it’s a learning process. Minimizing ideas that are against the ones we hold dear to us as harmful may help protect one’s ego; but it inhibits learning, and a perspective of growth.

 

Closing Thoughts: Free Speech Is A Radical Value — Not A Conservative One

In a world where information is so accessible, we are challenged to evolve beyond the instinctual and reflexive part of human nature and start seeing others as unique, complex individuals with experiences, motivations, and perspectives that are just as compelling as our own.

Inhibitions on free speech become a crutch we grow reliant on, inhibiting our capacity for growth and leading to self-sabotage. Arguing that certain subjects should not be discussed is, according to Jonathan, also arguing that people are not capable of self-governance — which can be seen in areas and countries where censorship is a norm.

Our continued freedom to think, speak, and act is also shaped by the way we choose to respond to other people. When all this is translated into data on the internet, it really makes you think — how much is your data worth? www.tartle.co

 

Tcast is brought to you by TARTLE. A global personal data marketplace that allows users to sell their personal information anonymously when they want to, while allowing buyers to access clean ready to analyze data sets on digital identities from all across the globe.

 

The show is hosted by Co-Founder and Source Data Pioneer Alexander McCaig and Head of Conscious Marketing Jason Rigby.

 

What's your data worth?

 

Find out at: https://tartle.co/

 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TARTLE

 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TARTLEofficial/

 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tartle_official/

 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TARTLEofficial

 

Spread the word!