Free Speech Arguments In Defence Of Racist Language Are Often Driven By Prejudice

Several street battles between pro-Trump and anti-Trump supporters have taken place across US universities over the right to provide or deny a platform to speakers who promote bigoted and racist language. Freedom of speech is frequently advocated by right-wingers and libertarians in defence of these speakers and their alleged right to hold campus events.


A study by University of Kansas psychologists throws new light on the factors that drive people to argue in favour of free speech to protect racist expression. The findings show that such positions are motivated by racial prejudice, rather than principle. 



Many who use the free speech argument in these cases do not do so when negative comments are directed at authority figures or the public in general.



The researchers also found that prejudiced people do not defend racist speech because they feel implicated in racism, or identify with the speakers. One of the researchers, Mark H. White, notes that:


It isn't so much that these controversies make prejudiced people feel bad about themselves; instead, it seems to be driven partially by prejudiced people feeling like they are not free to live how they want to live and say what they want to say—they feel as if their freedom is under attack ...

The researchers conclude that prejudiced people tend to use the free speech argument selectively, when it suits their needs. The broader implication is that values can be used strategically to justify prejudiced attitudes.



These findings are particularly useful to navigate the current political climate. In Europe and the US, racist hate speech has reached unprecedented levels, and several political players invoke freedom of speech to justify these harmful forms of expression. 

This study reminds us that such views are often not driven by principle, but a need to defend racial prejudice.