When you have someone you call A who is afraid of a neighbor you
call B, and the situation gets so bad between them that the entire neighborhood
becomes affected by the quarrel of the two, there is a right way and a wrong
way to approach the problem if you're called upon to help solve it.
You listen to A who tells you what B is doing that frightens him.
You listen to B who tells you he is only doing what he has the legal right to
do, and nothing illegal. So now, you need to decide what approach to take to
solve the problem. Well, the worst thing you can do is dismiss the fear that A
is experiencing simply because he has no legal standing, given that he isn't
even accusing B of illegal activities. What do you do now?
What you need to do cannot be explained in the abstract because
there is not one model solution that will work in all the circumstances. So,
let's take an actual case and analyze it. A good one to discuss is that of the
prevailing situation on America's campuses. Here, in a nutshell, is what's
going on: When it comes to engaging in campus activities, one group favors the
aggressive exercise of every activity that's permitted under the law. Another
group is invoking its legal right to being shielded from someone's activities
even if they are inherently legal.
Over the years, the situation has escalated to the point where the
aggressive group started to accuse the passive one of infringing on its legal
right to express itself. On the other hand, the passive group accused the
aggressive one of violating its legal right to be free of harassment. So, there
you are, faced with two equally compelling rights that will not even land in
court under the current circumstances.
If you are a journalist or a prominent person with easy access to
the media, you may leverage your position and try to do something that could
solve the problem, or at least alleviate it. In fact, this is what happened
when Michael Bloomberg, owner of a publishing empire, got involved. He wrote,
“Rage has free speech under siege on the American campus,” an article that
appeared in Bloomberg Opinion, and was reprinted on September 15, 2019 in the
New York Post. What follows is a condensed version of the article's content:
“Without engagement, liberal democracy can't survive. The question
is whether Americans can live and work without being intolerant of diverse
viewpoints. Democracy is about living with disagreement. A disturbing aspect
can be found on college campuses. Students stated the following: 'Free Speech
as a term, has been co-opted by all sides as a discursive cover for racism,
xenophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism and homophobia.'
The University of Chicago affirmed that debate may not be
suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, unwise,
immoral or wrong-headed. Not long ago, this would have been seen as
uncontroversial. Today, the lack of support for the Chicago Statement has
helped allow intolerance to seep deeper into the culture. It makes little
difference whether intolerance of disagreement is based on a desire for safety
or grounded in a theory of speech-as-violence. An approach that demands silence
will fracture the country. Restoring the ability to disagree without becoming
mortal enemies is an urgent civic imperative”.
Will this do it? It is doubtful it will. The proof is that this
kind of lecture is given out all the time, but very few people if any are moved
by it. In fact, some people may even consider the lecture a deliberate insult.
That's because when someone is hurting from a pain called “fear,” which can be
as intense as a physical wound, and you lecture them about a morality they may
have violated, you add insult to injury.
Literally speaking, speech will not cause the kind of physical
pain that a violent act will. But speech can work on the human mind in such a
way as to cause anguish that will engender pain as real as a physical wound. As
a rule, an “academic” debate on any subject must never be of a kind that has
the potential to hurt. But some debaters violate this rule as if by habit, and
the question is how did this situation come about?
The habit was injected into the American culture decades ago when
the Judeo-Yiddish invasion overpowered the immune system of the early
Euro-American culture. The Jews made early gains, and had things go their way.
In time, the nativist population found an antidote to the Jewish onslaught, and
began to push back. The Jews escalated by resorting to another habit: running
to higher authorities, and asking that they be treated with special care. By
then, the Jews had also secured monopoly over the media.
Playing the authorities and the media like a fiddle, the Jews were
able to slander, disgrace and vanquish anyone that stood in their way. This
being the ultimate form of violence that can be inflicted on someone, the Jews
have been using it to deter anyone who would stand in their way. The adults of
America took note and were intimidated. The campus folks decided to resist.
So, while the aggressive Jews keep running to the media and the
politicians to acquire more leverage on society, especially the campus, the
passive others seek safety where they can find it.