Sometimes even when I don't love a book overall, there will be certain ideas or sentences that stick with me. That alone makes it worth the read. Here are my notes in the margin for one of those books (mental notes by the way: only a monster would write on a library book). And boy, a lot of it is timely and relevant to free speech conversations happening here in New Zealand. So let's get straight into it.
Truth is trouble, by Malcolm Knox
What perspective is the author coming from?
I...honestly couldn't say? I didn't Google the author to find out whether he's been cancelled or not, so I'm judging the book purely on its merits. The book is written in a mostly fair and balanced way, not overly left or right. There were some descriptions of the Church that could have been handled in a more sympathetic manner by a different writer. But all in all, I didn't feel like I was being taken on an ideological ride. If you're wanting something comprehensive and academic, this ain't it. But if you're interested in hearing non-academic voices in the free speech conversation, this hits the spot.
Is the book worth reading?
I'll be honest, I read this book in two sittings, but it still could have been a lot shorter. I found some chapters superfluous and some anecdotes ran a bit long. If you're an impatient reader, that could put you off.
I'm going to say yes, this is worth reading if you're a New Zealander interested in understanding the free speech issues our neighbours have grappled with. The book is very current (published late 2020) and references how the culture wars played out in the pandemic. I'll be covering off the key themes and quotes that stood out to me in this post.
The role of the ambivalent centrist
One thing I like about this book is the author's honesty about his own ambivalence. About not having real skin in the game. It's not necessarily a virtue, as he himself acknowledges. Some people are personally affected in free speech debates, whether they choose to be or not. But Knox raises an important question:
"Is the proper response of those disengaged from personal experience to stay silent?...Should the moderate, the sceptic, the unconvinced, the neutral, simply let the fight happen elsewhere, as if the polite response to a scuffle in the pub, say, is to keep on drinking and let the brawlers tear down the walls?" (p.6)
The implication, of course, is that only the loudest and extreme voices dominate the debate. The challenge is figuring out how to enter the debate when you don't have a strong opinion.
I don't know what the ideal solution is. Both the media and social media thrive on pithy soundbites. As someone broadly concerned about the protection of civil liberties, I worry that freedoms and protections (including the right to feel safe from violence) will be eroded while I'm still deep in ponder. And yet it is the hasty, gut-driven approach that is likely to lead to worse outcomes for all. There's an element of game theory to all of this. Or to put it another way, a panic buying toilet paper situation.
My only real opinion for what this means for New Zealand is a plea to slow the hell down. There will always be some who jump the gun, but we didn't run out of toilet paper and we're not going to lose our civil liberties and protections overnight unless enough people expect the worst of their fellow Kiwis.
Minorities suffer from free speech restrictions too
This point wasn't handled particularly convincingly in the book, but it's definitely worth noting. To what extent do free speech restrictions reflect and entrench existing hegemonies?
A lot of people like to talk a big game when it comes to diversity, but when it comes to a genuine plurality of opinions, how much 'free speech' will be tolerated if it goes against the dominant cultural and social values?
Many free speech restrictions are, of course, intended to protect minorities. But 'minorities' isn't just one group with the same values and needs, and even within minority groups there are sometimes opposing viewpoints.
The role of employers in enforcing free speech restrictions
Well, this is extremely timely given New Zealand now has a registered union dedicated to protecting free speech.
On the one hand, it is a private contractual issue: if you voluntarily sign up to a code of conduct or social media protocol then you are obliged to stick to it. Don't like the terms and conditions of employment? Look for a better job. On the other hand, should employment terms and conditions be applicable even when the worker is 'off the clock'? And should those obligations trump the right of freedom of expression?
The incentives matter here too. Employers are naturally risk averse and reputation-oriented. If enough people demand action from an employer to sack an employee, then this is the much easier road to take rather than stand by the employee's private life. There are proper disciplinary and termination processes that employers have to follow, but once you're down that path, the employment relationship is likely already broke.
And then there's the asymmetry in power. Employers can make whatever public stance they like without consultation with employees. But what happens if that public stance on, say a political or social issue, goes directly against the employee's private religion or beliefs? As businesses increasingly do issue stances on social issues and are seen as vehicles for social action, this isn't just a hypothetical.
The book could have just started and ended here. Want to know why moderate voices don't speak up on free speech and other controversial issues? Because they don't want to get fired. Because they just want to live a simple life that includes employment. End of story. Not a satisfying ending, but this is surely a huge deterrent.
Where does freedom of religion fit into this?
I feel I'm too far detached from any church or religion to get a good sense of what the views on religious freedom are in New Zealand.
In Australia these views have been thoroughly thrashed out in several public inquiries (four inquiries in two years) including a public inquiry into whether Australian law protected rights to religious freedom which attracted more than 15,500 submissions.
Here's the upshot:
"A deep dive into the inquiries showed that while religion might be a fading force in Australia numerically, it's capable of causing as much heated division as ever. What it is losing in numbers, it is making up for in passion...When I looked closely at those wanting to influence the religious freedom bill, both for and against, whatever their differences in relation to religion and freedom of speech, the sense of grievance and endangerment was common." (p.188)
I've sampled both sides of submissions on this issue and feel that both sides put forward compelling cases in the name of freedom and protection from hate and discrimination. I suspect that a fulsome conversation on free speech laws in New Zealand will yield similar results. What happens then? Do you pick protect one minority over the other and accept there will always be an aggrieved party? Do you declare an impasse and conclude the State simply cannot decide?
What seems to be clear from the Australian example is that these conversations are likely to be ongoing. Indeed, if neither side felt endangered there would be no need for a culture war.
Protect the place for subtlety
"If you try to be clever or ambivalent or subtle or anything less than absolutist, you are prone to being misheard. Unless you are plain and literal, unless you raise your voice into a plain and literal shout, then your words will only be twisted out of shape and turned back against you." (p.197)
I hear this. As someone who enjoys words and playfulness and occasional satire, this hit hard. We're in an online environment where tweets get quote tweeted, or sentences get pulled from a blog or wider piece of writing out of context. It doesn't matter what you stand for, or what your track record on an issue is. In the hands of strangers, your words are no longer yours.
And yet, offline New Zealand does not seem to have the hardened tribalism we see overseas. There's still a place for reasonable debate on most issues (although I can think of some notable exceptions). We don't want to lose that.
If the culture wars here do rise from a trickle to a flood, it will come at the expense of being able to be heard on your own terms to people who aren't on your "side".
We must continue to protect the ability to be heard fairly. It's not a right. But it is surely an end worth striving for.