Salman Rushdie’s Stabbing Shows the Danger of Conflating Words With ‘Violence’

Daily Beast | Greg Lukianoff and Robert Shibley

FIRE leaders Lukianoff and Shibley respond to the Rushdie attack: “The message sent by a successful attack on Rushdie is loud and unmistakable: Your hurtful speech is the equivalent of violence against me and my values, and you deserve violence in return.” The authors present the only two choices for conflict resolution: “Free speech...[or] authoritarian repression.”

Citing campus surveys equating speech to violence, the authors write that “if violence and hurtful speech are actually equivalent, it’s not only logical to answer speech with violence, it’s impossible to cogently argue that you shouldn’t. A downward spiral towards violence is guaranteed.”

“The vast majority of Americans who say that violent responses to speech are sometimes acceptable will nevertheless be appalled by the attack on Rushdie. Yet they must come to grips with the fact that today’s attack, multiplied thousands of times, is how a society where violence is acceptable protest to speech would actually look. Free speech, and the peaceful version of conflict resolution it enables, is the only solution to this problem that does not require authoritarian repression.”

Read the Article

Related:

Previous
Previous

James Baldwin's Radicalism

Next
Next

All Because Salman Rushdie Wrote a Book