How should you react to speech you disagree with? | Nicholas Christakis | Big Think

The answer to speech we do not like is more speech, not censoring the person we don't want to hear or punishing the person we don't want to hear. There's the difference between defending an important principle and advocating for the implications of that principle.

Let me give you a couple of examples. One example is defending the freedom of expression, even though you disagree with what someone might say when they exercise that freedom. So, for example, I might defend your right to speak. I might defend your right to express yourself without fear of losing your job, for example. But I might still not agree with whatever it is that you're going to say.

So you say something I don't like. I don't like it. I respond to it. That's the proper way to handle it. That is to say, we defend the right of people to express themselves, even though we acknowledge that the outcome of that might not be what we agree with.

So the famous saying, of course, is, "I don't agree with what it is that you want to say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death." Another related example of this, for instance, is the defense of contested elections. We might say we really want, if there are going to be important roles in universities or in our society, we want free and open elections, and we want contesting candidates.

We don't want one candidate that everyone has to either vote for or not vote for. We want elections to be contested. We should defend that principle, even if we don't like the outcome of the vote. To defend that principle doesn't mean you're endorsing a particular candidate; it just means you're defending the principle of open contested elections.

And if you don't like the fact that someone you don't want might win, that right strategy is not to prevent fair elections. Only in totalitarian or authoritarian governments do we do that. We don't want that. We don't want to risk that someone who we don't approve of will win; therefore, we don't have free elections.

So again, there's often a confusion between defending the principle of free expression or the principle of contested elections and the conflation of defending that principle with defending the content of what someone might say or defending the candidates that might be running. Of course, those are two very different things.

You test your ideas by arguing with people who disagree with you, and actually, if you're good at it, you even learn to enjoy it. Some of the most fun I have in life is arguing with a good friend of mine who has ideas that are very different from my own, and I have to admit I enjoy it so much.

Often, I talk to him, and I'm like, you know, he's right, and my beliefs don't have a very sound foundation. I wouldn't have discovered that if I hadn't actually engaged in an argument with him. We enjoy each other's company tremendously, and he has very provocative ideas.

For example, he thinks you should be able to sell your right to vote, or he thinks that the citizen should be able to sell who they vote for. I think this is a totally preposterous idea that it's so anti-democratic and subverts a very key principle of our society. But in arguing with him about this, you know, I think I may move the needle a little with him, and he makes it harder for me to recognize, well, what is the source of my belief?

You know, what is my objection to his idea? It makes you think harder about even the things you take for granted.