"The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech"

Post Reply New Topic

"The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech" by Geoffrey Miller, who identifies as an aspie.

http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodi ... ee-speech/

The focus in on speech codes at colleges and universities and how they disproportionately target non-neurotypical people. A sample:

Here’s the problem. America’s informal ‘speech norms’, which govern what we’re allowed to say and what we’re not, were created and imposed by ‘normal’ brains, for ‘normal’ brains to obey and enforce. Formal speech codes at American universities were also written by and for the ‘neurotypical’. They assume that everyone on campus is equally capable, 100% of the time, of:

--Using their verbal intelligence and cultural background to understand speech codes that are intentionally vague, over-broad, and euphemistic, to discern who’s actually allowed to say what, in which contexts, using which words;

--Understand what’s inside the current Overton window of ‘acceptable ideas’, including the current social norms about what is ‘respectful’ versus what is ‘offensive’, ‘inappropriate’, ‘sexist’, ‘racist’, ‘Islamophobic’, or ‘transphobic’;

--Use ‘Theory of Mind’ to predict with 100% accuracy which speech acts might be offensive to someone of a different sex, age, race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, or political outlook;

--Inhibit ‘inappropriate’ speech with 100% reliability in all social contexts that might be reported or recorded by others;

--Predict with 100% accuracy what’s likely to trigger outrage by peers, student activists, social media, or mainstream media – any of which might create ‘adverse publicity’ for the university and a speech code inquisition, without due process or right of appeal, for the speaker.

Speech codes assume a false model of human nature – that everyone has the same kind of brain that yields a narrow, ‘normal’ set of personality traits, cognitive and verbal abilities, moral temperaments, communication styles, and capacities for self-inhibition. This neurotypicality assumption is scientifically wrong, because different people inherit different sets of genes that influence how their brains grow and function, and every mental trait shows substantial heritability. These heritable mental traits run deep: they are stable across adolescence and adulthood, and they span everything from social intelligence to political attitudes. They also predict many aspects of human communication – probably including the ability to understand and follow formal speech codes and informal speech norms. The neurodiverse are often just ‘born that way’.

So if an aspie wants to go saying racist and sexist things to people, they should be excused because they were 'just born that way.' That kind of seems to be the gist here...

I understand maybe some places try to push too strict of speech rules which is also problematic, but the solution is hardly to excuse actual racism and sexism on account of 'he/she just doesn't know any better/was born like that' I also don't appreciate the implication that us aspies are incapable of basic decency and understanding things like what racism and sexism are and why they ought not be condoned.

Also though freedom of speech doesn't mean no rules or limits of any kind ever in regards to speech.
you can't yell bomb in a crowded theater
you can't go around threatening to kill or assault people
you can't go to a childrens playground or a school and start screaming profanities at peoples children.
you can't go on a verbal assault if a cashier doesn't check you out fast enough
you can't just up and set up a protest wherever you want, there are regulations.
ect.

What I say is from a USA perspective: the concept of free speech differs from country to country.

Freedom of speech means the right to share ideas freely without censorship or reprecussion from the government. This includes Public Universties. This includes saying things like " I hate X group of people and I believe Y Group of people are superior". This is protected speech, because there is no incite to violence, or "fighting words". It's a stupid thing to say, but still protected. There is no law against offending someone. When you ENDANGER people, however, like threatening their lives, their health, their property, or causing panic like in the crowded theater example, then this is not protected under free speech.

In response to Sweetleaf, examples 1, 2, and 3 are examples of non-protected speech. Example 4 all depends on what you mean by verbal assault. If you mean threaten physical violence, then no, it would not be protected. If he is expressing his annoyance and frustration, then this would be protected, though he could still be asked to leave the premises. The last example once again depends. In the US we have the right to assemble. As long as you don't interfere with anyone's livelihoods, which is the idea behind requiring permits, you can pretty much protest wherever you want (many people do - I remember the Occupy movement all too well).

In summary, if someone says something that is offensive to you, i.e., hate speech, that is not necessarily illegal speech, at least in the US.

I don't get what's so bad about being offended? I can see a case if it is a threat to you.