Framing free speech and political correctness as opposing forces is a false dichotomy intended to derail uncomfortable but necessary conversations, a smokescreen ginned up by the ethically lazy. The fact is, political correctness doesn’t hinder free speech – it expands it. But for marginalised groups, rather than the status quo.
She’s managed to get herself into the usual confusion.
Yep, it’s probably a bad idea to go around using words like nigger, kike, wop, and so on to describe people. It’s not civilised at the very least and it fails that test of being a gentleman of never unwittingly insulting someone to boot. So, OK, and fine with the general idea that there might be general societal admonitions against those that use such words.
However, this right to free speech stuff. It does indeed say that you can say anything you like subject only to libel and incitement to violence restrictions. And that incitement has to be overt and immediate too. That right to free speech also comes with it the necessity of putting up with the consequences of what you say though.
And the fundamental distinction between these two points is that one is what the law says and the other is what will be the societal consequences of what you do say.
The law says you can say nigger, kike, wop and so on. Society, rightly, says that you are a dullard boor racist if you do. Fine.
But that doesn’t then mean that PC increases free speech rights. It just means that there’s some societal come back from exercising those rights. The law says you can explain bukkakke parties to your granny: societal convention tends to demur on whether this is a good idea.
What West and others are doing is confusing themselves. They’ve internalised the general idea that free speech is something we regard as good. So also have they internalised the idea that not randomly (or directly) insulting or hurting people through thoughtless use of language is a good idea. Great, they’re right, they’re both good ideas.
But they’re not the same idea. And that’s where this idiocy of trying to insist that PC increases free speech rights comes from. Because they assuming that if they’re both good ideas then they must be the same one. They ain’t.
One is about what our rulers may not tell us we may say or not. The other is about the societal, not legal, conventions of what the results of our saying something are. You’ve every legal right (or, perhaps, you should have) to be a racist dullard boor. Equally, people are allowed to call you a racist dullard boor for being one.
To change the example a little, it’s now legal to commit adultery. We do still have social conventions against it. The second is a limitation on that legal right, not a reinforcement of it.
PC doesn’t expand free speech, it limits it. As we all agree that it should in fact: all we’re arguing about is how PC is enough?