The New York Times answers the age-old question ‘When is speech violence?’

The New York Times answers the age-old question ‘When is speech violence?’
Image: Keith Publicover via Shutterstock

It’s not really an age-old question. The author of the Times piece, “neuroscientist” Lisa Feldman Barrett, even acknowledges the quite obvious distinction between threatening violence (using words) and making good on the threat (taking action) before waxing scientific:

But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sickalter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.

Your body’s immune system includes little proteins called proinflammatory cytokines that cause inflammation when you’re physically injured. Under certain conditions, however, these cytokines themselves can cause physical illness. What are those conditions? One of them is chronic stress.

In other words, if you spend a lot of time worrying about a neighbor who keeps threatening to knock off, it is bad for your health.

The author ultimately wends her way around to the real question she set out to answer in the first place. It’s not whether speech is ever violence. It’s which kinds of speech can be considered violent. The answer — surprise! — is political speech, especially the kind that conservatives are fond of uttering on college campuses.

This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”

Trigger warnings? Microaggressions? Yes, she went there!

It seems not to have occurred to Barrett that if her premise is valid, then it cuts both ways. Conservatives can also claim to be “harmed” by views they disagree with.

Alex Griswold, who writes for the Washington Free Beacon, has a little fun with this glaring double standard, tweeting out:

It’s fascinating meantime to observe how liberals cling stubbornly and naïvely to the notion that there are those on the right and those in the right, and that the two are mutually exclusive.

Howard Portnoy

Howard Portnoy

Howard Portnoy has written for The Blaze, HotAir, NewsBusters, Weasel Zippers, Conservative Firing Line, RedCounty, and New York’s Daily News. He has one published novel, Hot Rain, (G. P. Putnam’s Sons), and has been a guest on Radio Vice Online with Jim Vicevich, The Alana Burke Show, Smart Life with Dr. Gina, and The George Espenlaub Show.

Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.