Natan Sharansky writes (with Gil Troy),
Can you express your individual views loudly, in public, without fear of being punished legally, formally, in any way? If yes, you live in a free society; if not, you’re in a fear society.
He says that he used to call this the Town Square test. He is thinking of calling it the Twitter test.
OJ could have just admitted he killed Nicole from the get go, but couldn’t because we live in a fear society.
“A Test for Freedom”
It’s a test for only one freedom. We have multiple freedoms that can conflict. Until you’re able to resolve the freedom of speech vs. freedom of association conundrum, then we probably aren’t moving the ball forward at all.
E.g. I support the freedom of speech of pedophiles, but I equally support the right of people to completely and totally disassociate from them. Copy/paste this logic to the various other less controversial topics that exist out there. Exit > voice.
“He says that he used to call this the Town Square test. He is thinking of calling it the Twitter test.”
Can we just call it the Hester Prynne test and call it a day? If the individuals within a society are not willing to tolerate the violation of certain cultural norms, then why hold it against them collectively? Is it out-of-bounds to vote with one’s feet or do we need to hold free speech as sacrosanct against all other freedoms?
Hans has the right idea. There have always been ideas that if you hold them you can’t say them. Even ideas that are “right”. Just 70 years ago saying in Alabama that blacks and whites were equal would be such a view. Etc.
The problem today is the extreme narrowing of the Overton window.
I think the way to look at this is more quantitatively than as binary. Ie it’s not “are there people outside the Overton window”, it’s “ what *percentage* of people hold core views that are outside the Overton window”? I suspect what you would see is that let’s say 5% of people have held such views for most of the last 100 years (not always the same 5%). Now I think it’s probably more like 80%, and it’s spiked to 80% mostly in the last decade. Maybe I’m way off on my numbers but I think the overall picture is right. And I think that’s the problem.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re right that the problem is proportional to the fraction of the population who hold views that are outside some extra-legal, shifting window, but do not express them because they are intimidated by reasonable expectations of harsh consequences. Maybe minority viewpoints are fair game, but it’s only a problem if a majority viewpoint is suppressed by such pressures. What would you do about such a problem?
In context of the overall article, I think the doublethink is limited to (mostly) political thought. Increased politicization of everything e.g. COVID means you now have to check your thoughts before speaking them publicly for fear of reprimand which can show up as legal pushback or puts you at risk of losing your job.
I agree the test makes sense.
Alternatively, look for the borders of the space in which you are able to express your individual views loudly without retribution, formal or informal… but what will you have found? It isn’t really clear. Yes, that’s freedom of speech… but do you even have it within your own head?
Reminds me of your review of Scruton’s Fools, Frauds and Firebrands:
“Almost all the thinkers I have discussed in this book have adopted the same annihilating approach to their opponents as leftist parties in power. For the opponent is the class enemy. Should he put his head above the parapet in the culture wars he is not to be argued with, for he cannot utter truth… Such an enemy is not to be the object of negotiation or compromise. Only after his final elimination from the social order will the truth be perceivable.”
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/KlingScruton.html