Deplatforming ideas: Some South African trees are cheering on the axes
13 January 2020
No free society enjoying the right to freedom of speech achieved it without immense sacrifice and struggle. It remains a very fragile human right, taken for granted by some, that can be lost much faster and easier than it was acquired. The South African philosopher N.P. van WykLouw recognised the essential value of this important human right when he said: “As vital as blood circulation is for the body, just as vital is the circulation of ideas for a nation. The circulation of ideas is the free expression of one's own opinions and the attentive listening to the opinions of others, so that interaction takes place ... and in time perhaps a mutual understanding and some common conviction may follow; it is the ‘open conversation’ not only between individuals, but also between groups. Without this, no healthy political life is possible.” Suffocating freedom of speech therefore amounts to political suicide.
As South Africa enters a new decade, many reflect on the previous one by discussing its constructive, as well as destructive features. A common notion is that the rise of “cancel culture” was the most regressive phenomena of the 2010s – different groups and/or individuals make it their mission to “deplatform” or sometimes even outright silence those who dare to disagree with their chosen narrative. This scorched earth tactic on the battlefield of ideas is often cleverly cloaked in passionate, emotional slogans, providing moral justification for ignoring rationality and reasonableness.
The successful labelling of the ideas of the targeted individual(s) as “dangerous to society” or a “threat to our democracy” or “racist”, even without proof, provides a moral basis to silence them with censorship or banning. The opposite is unfortunately true. The shutting down of dialogue, the stifling of vigorous debate between differing views – that is the true threat to a healthy democracy and most certainly dangerous to society. Without the vital right to freedom of speech, you will not possess the means of defending your other fundamental human rights. Therefore, one should argue that freedom of expression should in fact be the most cherished and vehemently defended human right of all, in any free society.
A common tactic observed when the outraged mob is out for blood is the constant use of labels in the direction of their chosen target. This is especially evident on social media. Rather than rationally justifying the removal of someone’s account or page from a social media site by citing specific instances of the accused’s reprehensible behaviour, they are simply attributed a generalising derogatory label – such as “racist”, “far right”, “fascist”, et cetera.