Introduction: The Silenced Majority
For most of us, the loss of one’s voice usually happens gradually. First, it’s a small adjustment to the words that you use. “Blind” becomes “visually impaired,” “fat” is discarded for “overweight,” “homeless” is replaced with “unhoused,” and “idiotic” is replaced with “uninformed.” Some academics even suggest words like “American,” “prisoner,” and “victim” should be off-limits due to the harm they believe the words to cause and the messages they perceive them to convey. Oh, and you don’t talk about the “black sheep” of the family anymore—you talk about the “outcast” member of the family. And you no longer “take a shot at” something—rather, you “give a go at” it instead. You go along with many of these alternative words and phrases to be polite. You apologize for your errors.
Soon, other seemingly harmless requests and rules are introduced. You are told not to wear a certain dress or hairstyle from another culture because to do so is “cultural appropriation.” You are told the word “man” includes everyone who self-identifies as one. You are told that only white people can be racist. And you are told you must believe all women, and you must never question the “lived experience” of anyone from an underrepresented minority. And you hesitantly go along with all this, too, even if all these new rules don’t all necessarily make sense to you. After all, everyone else is going along, and you don’t want to be an outlier within your own social circle. Before long, you realize that you’re better off not expressing any thoughts, ideas, or questions—lest you offend anyone. Of course, you don’t intend to offend, but it’s hard to tell what might offend any given person. It is in the eye of the beholder. So, you stop talking altogether or stick to the weather because you don’t want to be disagreeable or cause a fight, and you certainly don’t want to be ostracized or destroy a career you’ve spent a lifetime building. Besides, you’ve got a family to feed.
That’s how regular people get silenced—little by little each day as their vocabularies and beliefs are bounded by an ever-shrinking box. Gradually. Like a frog in boiling water, you barely realize what’s happening until it’s too late; the temperature just keeps slowly creeping up. Boxed in that silence, you begin to lose yourself. And it is in that mass silence that we, as a society, lose our ability to have meaningful, nuanced discourse and give up our voices to those who crave the power to control others. That’s the price we pay. But our coffers are starting to come up empty. When we see so many clamoring to denounce others over highly subjective perceptions of objectionable behavior or speech, anyone can find themselves as a target. And as we’ve been witnessing, it doesn’t take much for the accusations to fly fast and loose. All it takes is expressing a different opinion on a social or political issue, or asking the wrong question—or even believing in an idea or principle that was widely shared by the chattering class just a few short years ago but that today is considered forbidden in polite society. It can even be as small a slight as accidentally mispronouncing someone’s name.
For individuals, the stakes are high. Livelihoods, reputations, careers, social standing—all can disappear in the blink of an eye. As we’ve all too tragically seen, some never recover—even if they first put up a brave fight. For society, the stakes are no less high. As we as a society grow increasingly intolerant, we undermine the very ideals of a democratic society from within, edging ever closer to authoritarianism. A July 2023 survey from the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats found that 17 percent of American adults—an estimated 44 million people—agree with the following statement: “Use of force is justified to ensure members of Congress and other government officials do the right thing.” Democrats (16 percent) and Republicans (18 percent) are almost even in this belief. We can only guess what “the right thing” might be. Given the oversized impact the zealous few can have on the political and cultural landscape, these numbers are sobering, if not chilling. The one promising finding in the survey is that 77 percent of the American public opposes political violence and wants bipartisan solutions to it, but this opposition will be toothless and ineffectual if this majority does not raise its voice—both in words and through action. While the Washington Post might be correct in noting that “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” it also dies in silence.
Across the West, attempts are being made to soften the sometimes clanky but always necessary sounds of the democratic engine—freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In the United Kingdom, police have been tracking and recording “non-crime hate incidents” and logging them with no investigation or due process, and the passage of the Online Safety Bill will give the government the power to censor and shut down online content. Under Ireland’s “draconian” Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill, citizens might soon be charged with a crime if they say or write something that someone from a protected class finds hateful or offensive. If a single person from such a class finds your words hateful, then based on the bill’s logic, your words are not only hateful but also criminal.
In Canada, Bill C-11, known as the Online Streaming Act, which was first proposed in 2020 and received royal assent in 2023, allows the government the power to regulate online speech and even shut down the social media and streaming accounts of Canadians. Meanwhile, the Online Harms Bill, first tabled in 2021 as Bill C-36 and since rebranded as the Online Safety Bill, would have those who engage in hate online, be it via social media or public comments on news articles, face criminal charges. While most of us are not likely to consider “hate speech” as a form of expression that adds value to our lives, it is, in fact, protected by section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees individuals’ freedom of expression. What’s particularly worrisome about the proposed bill is the interpretation of “hatred,” which the bill defines as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.” In response, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) issued a statement that argues that the bill would be an infringement on free expression—namely, that the proposed definition of hate speech is “a vague and subjective standard.” It also expressed concern that the bill would prevent Canadians from “debating unsettled subjects.”
In the United Kingdom, the penalties for hate speech can include fines, imprisonment, or both—including for posts on social media. Although newer numbers are hard to come by, a total of 2,500 people were arrested between 2011 and 2016 in London alone for allegedly sending “offensive” messages via social media under the country’s 2003 Communications Act and legislation pertaining to public order, with police arresting nine people per day across the United Kingdom by the end of this five-year span, representing an increase of 50 percent in two years. As one example illustrating the type of legal overreach that has been occurring, Chelsea Russell, a teenager in Liverpool, was charged with a “hate crime” after a screenshot was anonymously sent to police of her quoting lyrics from Snap Dogg’s “I’m Trippin,” which included the N-word, on her Instagram account. She had posted the lyrics as a tribute to a friend who had died in a car accident, as it was his favorite song. Although the case against her was later overturned, she was initially given an eight-week community service order and curfew and was ordered to pay fines. In recent years, individuals have been fined or arrested for such minor offenses as sharing a meme.