The proclivity of political activists to refer to speech they object to as violence could have some unpalatable consequences.
Violence is something which has traumatised human history for thousands of years. Over that time, our legal systems have developed laws to legislate against interpersonal violence, whether it be murder, rape or assault, alongside internationally recognised laws concerning conflicts between and within states, genocide, or government violence towards minority groups.
But when it comes to acts of violence, many shades of grey exist. There are crucial differences between murder, manslaughter and killing in self defence, which are recognised differently under the law. But what happens when words and speech can equate to a type of violence?
The idea that certain speech is violence has become increasingly popular among various political activists. In fact, for some, no speech at all can sometimes constitute violence. Last month in London, four flatmates were forced to remove a banner they had hung from their flat which read ‘white silence is violence’. The view that some speech is violence is also common on University campuses. A 2017 study of students at the American Ivy League college of Yale found that although 93% agreed that there is value in listening to views and opinions they disagree with, 81% believed that words can be a form of violence.
Hate speech laws have been part of the legal systems of most western liberal democracies for decades, as well as other laws restricting speech, such as defamation or fraud. In the United States, despite being known for their almost absolutist approach to free speech, there are nonetheless narrow categories of speech which are not protected by the government or constitution. One such category is fighting words - which certainly sounds the best bet for speech being violence!
The term fighting words originated from a 1942 Supreme Court case that concluded words which “by their utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” were not protected speech under the First Amendment. Since that decision in 1942, there have been subsequent Supreme Court decisions which have further narrowed the definition of fighting words. Terminiello v Chicago (1949) found that only words which present a clear and present danger should be considered fighting words, while words inviting dispute and causing unrest is protected speech. Despite this, the 1942 decision on fighting words has not been overturned. But are fighting words an incitement to violent action, or are they themselves a form of violence ?
The concept of violence is a complicated one. Many, but not all, definitions of violence require a physical component. And on the surface it may seem there are no physical repercussions to support the claim that verbal violence exists. However, high levels of stress, fear or anxiety caused by another’s speech, have been shown to have bodily repercussions for some individuals. For example, extreme stress can lead to muscle pain, illness or a number of other physical side affects. Although speech which incites violent action may not be violence itself, it is possible for some speech to be a form of violence
Of course, many who refer to objectionable speech as violence are rarely suggesting it has had some physical consequence on them. Instead it is a more broadly defined sense that the speech they have heard is highly objectionable and offensive. But, even if we say that speech can be a form of violence, we need to consider the real world consequences.
Physical violence has crucial differences, especially in the eyes of the law. In these cases of violence, the intent of the attack, and the extent of injury for the victim are just some of the many important factors that determine the degree of violence which has taken place. If we conclude that speech is a form of violence, when does it equate to physical violence ? This is a crucial question. If the answer is that it never equals physical violence, why are we associating the word violence with speech in the first place ?
So what may some of the consequences be if speech can be a form of violence ? Can that justify, or even encourage, physical violence in retaliation to verbal violence ? These are dangerous waters to tread, and can have real world consequences.
In January 2017, Richard Spencer, an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist, was punched in the face during an interview with ABC News. We may not be particularly concerned when neo-Nazis like Spencer are being physically assaulted in the street. But the consequences of physical violence against those we disagree with politically, no matter how egregious their speech may be, could be severe. If speech can equate to a form of violence, that would not seem compatible with crucial aspects of a functioning democracy, where debate and freedom of expression are paramount.
This leads us to a more technical issue about how you define when speech is violence. A physical reaction to speech is very much an individual experience. Words are not inherently violence, and just because one person suffers physical consequences from somebody’s speech, does not mean everyone will. Even the most offensive words in our language are constructs to which we have attached meaning. For some, those words may have different meanings attached to them, and cause a physical reaction, whereas for others it won’t. This differs substantially from physical violence where, in most cases, the extent to which an act of violence impacts a person depends on the actions of another, rather than the victims own interpretation. This all makes it hard to deduce when an act of verbal violence may have been committed.
That is a fundamental issue. Even if we grant that speech can be violence, how can we point to when this is the case. Couple this with the possible justification of physical violence in response to speech, and the whole concept seems quite unpalatable. Retaining a distinction between speech and violence, between words and actions, is vital if we wish to live in a functional society.
Comments