On Feb. 18, two Tufts students wrote an article titled “A difference in opinion is debatable, a difference in reality isn’t,”in which they argued that political officials should be held accountable for their “dangerous words and views.” I completely agree. They reference the struggles in “maintaining a diversity of opinion amid a tense political climate.” I agree with that too. Where these authors and I disagree, however, is on what exactly constitutes “dangerous speech” and how exactly we should approach the issue of accountability. The authors argue that we must distinguish differences of opinion from differences of reality; any view that doesn’t conform with “objective reality” should be dismissed as conspiracy and denied any legitimate debate. Yet while the authors claim this will help preserve the integrity of democratic discourse, the ultimate consequence would actually be a direct attack on free speech.
The truth is, there is no such thing as “objective reality” in a world where our versions of “reality” are often colored by the media we consume. We are all, to some degree, biased. For an individual or group to claim to possess some superior knowledge of reality is unfounded and creates a very slippery slope, one that allows people to weaponize the term “misinformation” to effectively “cancel” their opponent not just on factual grounds, but on grounds of opinion as well. If I hear something I disagree with, not because it’s false but because it expresses a view that’s different from my own, what’s stopping me from dismissing the argument as a “conspiracy theory” as a means of delegitimization? This behavior establishes a dangerous precedent and creates a culture in which discourse and debate are essentially disincentivized. Why take the time to engage with my opponent when I can reign victorious simply by calling them a liar?
I saw this happen firsthand during a class I was enrolled in last semester. The professor expressed an opinion regarding a political figure, then put it out to the class for debate, asking us to respond. Instead of engaging with the topic and exploring the issue from multiple sides, I was shocked to watch my classmates get upset with the professor. They yelled at him and accused him of supporting conspiracy theories. There was no rational debate. There was no civil discourse. Both the students and the professor had compelling arguments and evidence on their respective sides, but instead of weighing the merits of the facts, the entire class discussion devolved into the most disrespectful type of free-for-all. Students resorted to calling the professor names rather than listening to what he had to say. I was appalled to see this type of behavior from my peers, particularly at an institution that is supposed to challenge students intellectually. I was even more dismayed to watch my professor be called a “conspiracy theorist” simply for stating an opinion that many in the class did not agree with.
To preemptively dismiss an opposing party’s argument on the assumption that their views are factually incorrect before they are even granted the opportunity to plead their case is dangerous and undemocratic. The question becomes, then, how to manage real misinformation in our democratic system. It’s a question that’s puzzled the American populace for decades, particularly since the wide proliferation of social media sites.The Supreme Court has weighed in on the subject, finding some exceptions to free speech in the cases of obscene material, fighting words or speech that poses a clear and present danger. Yet the court’s rulings sometimes approach gray areas — for example, even though the court found that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact” (Gertz v. Welch),they have also ruled in cases like U.S. v. Alvarez and New York Times v. Sullivan that the falsity of a statement alone is often not enough to justify complete censorship — there must be accompanying malice or reckless disregard for the truth. It’s a fine line, one that must be respected to preserve the integrity of the freedom of speech.
To combat conspiracy theories, we shouldn’t quell speech — we should let it flourish. We should exercise our own right to speech to confront proponents of real misinformation with the facts that we have. We should let all sides debate and give citizens the opportunity to weigh the merits of each argument to get as close to the truth as possible. Most importantly, we should hold our officials accountable not by censoring them, but by voting them out of office. I understand this approach might be idealistic, as there are many obstacles to accessing and reasonably considering all of the facts in a given situation — confirmation bias, political polarization and a lack of civic engagement, just to name a few. But one thing is clear — dismissing an opponent as illegitimate because their views of reality don’t align with your own poses a threat to the discourse that serves as the cornerstone of our democratic system.
Jessica Parillo is a junior studying political science. Jessica can be reached at jessica.parillo@tufts.edu.
