Milton's Curse (part II)
Milton's Curse (Part II)
The Concept of Milton's Curse
Definition and Context: The concept of "Milton's Curse" is explored through the work of Jacob Mchangama, particularly his discussion on "The Free Speech Recession and How To Reverse It" (as referenced in a lecture segment from 12:08 min. to 17:16 min.). While not explicitly defined in the provided transcript, it generally alludes to the philosophical argument put forth by John Milton in Areopagitica, suggesting that truth will ultimately prevail in an open marketplace of ideas when allowed to contend freely with falsehood. The "curse" aspect implies that attempts to suppress speech, even speech deemed false or harmful, can paradoxically make it more potent, drive it underground, or create an unwarranted aura of victimhood around its proponents. This restrictive approach is seen as contributing to a "free speech recession" by Mchangama.
Modern Relevance: In contemporary discourse, Milton's Curse serves as a warning against censorship, arguing that the most effective way to combat harmful ideas is often through counter-speech, robust debate, and intellectual engagement, rather than suppression.
Heckler's Veto and Campus Free Speech
Definition: A "heckler's veto" occurs when an audience's disruptive behavior effectively silences a speaker, preventing them from conveying their message. This is a significant challenge to free speech, particularly in academic and public forums.
Case Study: Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa:
Background: Controversial conservative commentator Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa. Her past remarks and provocative style often generated strong reactions.
Incidents Leading to Cancellation: Specific remarks, such as a "Vietnam mistake" comment and a "Take a Camel" comment (as referenced in provided links), contributed to heightened tensions.
The Outcome: Due to anticipated or actual disruptions, the event was effectively canceled or heavily constrained, leading to widespread discussion, including commentary on Fox News, regarding the suppression of her speech. This sequence of events exemplifies how a heckler's veto can prevent planned discourse on university campuses.
Broader Implications: The Ann Coulter incident, and similar cases, highlight the challenge of balancing free expression with maintaining a civil and safe environment, particularly when contentious speakers are involved. It raises questions about the role of institutions in protecting speakers from disruptive audiences.
Janice Fiamengo and the Cost of Free Speech
University of Ottawa Example: Janice Fiamengo, also associated with the University of Ottawa, provides another instance where free speech on campus became a focal point of debate. Her discussions, often on controversial topics, have similarly faced opposition.
"Free Speech: At What Cost?": Her involvement in discussions titled "The Agenda (Free Speech: At What Cost?)" (as referenced) underscores the ongoing societal and institutional struggle to define the boundaries of free speech and reckon with the potential repercussions of allowing certain types of expression.
The Assassin's Veto
Definition: The "Assassin's Veto" represents the most extreme form of speech suppression, where threats of violence or actual violence are used to silence a speaker or prevent the dissemination of their ideas. This not only silences the individual but also creates a chilling effect, leading to self-censorship by others.
Case Study: Salman Rushdie and The Satanic Verses:
The Incident (1989): Following the publication of his novel The Satanic Verses in 1989, Salman Rushdie became the target of a fatwa (religious edict) issued by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, calling for his death due to alleged blasphemy. This sparked a "tsunami of outrage" globally, leading to threats and attacks against Rushdie and those associated with the book.
The Attack (2022): More than three decades later, in 2022, Rushdie was violently attacked during a lecture, suffering severe injuries. This event tragically demonstrated the long-lasting and lethal consequences of an assassin's veto, confirming that such threats can persist and be acted upon even years later.
Legal Action (2025): The attacker was subsequently charged in 2025 (as referenced in projected news), underscoring the legal consequences, but also the societal cost, of religiously or ideologically motivated violence against speech.
Ethical and Practical Implications: The Rushdie case is a stark reminder of the global nature of free speech threats and the profound impact of religious or ideological extremism on artistic and intellectual expression. It forces societies to confront the limits of tolerance and the necessity of protecting individuals from violence for their words.
Charlie Kirk and the Escalation of Political Violence
Projected Scenario (2025): The provided transcript introduces a hypothetical or projected future scenario where conservative commentator Charlie Kirk is killed, leading to significant political repercussions. "Trump officials vow crackdown on 'left-wing terrorism' after Charlie Kirk killing," implying a governmental response to politically motivated violence.
Implications for Free Speech:
Governmental Response: This scenario illustrates how acts of political violence, particularly those targeting prominent figures, can be used as a pretense or justification for broad government crackdowns. The reference to "Terrorism in America" (a congressional document from 2023), suggests a pre-existing framework for such responses.
Targeting Dissent: The pledge to crack down on "left-wing groups" implies that such events can lead to the suppression of dissenting political speech, movements, or organizations, under the guise of combating terrorism.
Public Discourse: The mention of Jimmy Kimmel suggests that such politically charged events become central to public and media discourse, shaping narratives around political violence, freedom of expression, and government power. This hypothetical scenario highlights the perilous intersection of free speech, political polarization, and the potential for state overreach in response to violence.
Right-Wing Double Standards
Critique of Hypocrisy: This point critiques alleged inconsistencies in how free speech principles are applied by certain right-wing factions. It suggests a double standard where some proponents of free speech vehemently oppose censorship or restrictions on their own expression, yet simultaneously advocate for harsh or suppressive measures against others.
"Lock up or kill poor people (no repercussions)": The referenced link, paired with this statement, implies a critique that these groups might condone or advocate severe punitive actions, even lethal ones, against marginalized or economically disadvantaged individuals, without facing significant accountability or repercussion. This highlights a perceived selective application of justice and human rights, forming a hypocritical stance when simultaneously championing absolute free speech for themselves. The ethical implication is a challenge to the universality and consistency of free speech advocacy.