Freedom of speech includes the right to be ignored
You ask most people what one of their most treasured personal freedoms are and freedom of speech comes close to the top. It is a fundamental part of any healthy democratic society, and often a sign of increasing repression when it is abrogated or otherwise curtailed. Without it we cannot hold power to account, and we cannot fight back against oppressive forces. Yet, there is no such thing as the freedom of absolute speech free from critique or consequences; you can say what you like, but that does not mean you are free from the reaction of others. Or the right to be ignored completely, because even if you say something you cannot expect others to engage with your speech. This lies at the heart of many of the contentious issues in modern society, the need of certain reactionary groups to grab the biggest drum to get as much attention as possible, yet when you ignore them, they simply build a bigger drum.
It is arguable that Elon Musk bought Twitter simply to buy the biggest drum, but since his acquisition the platform has become a continuous drumbeat for exclusionary feminists, right wing ideologues, and reactionary conservatives who denounce progressive views. For them conversation is about ratios, threads, and jumping on anyone who tries to hold them to account. Just because a post has 100,000 likes does not mean that it is worthy, it just means people agree with you. Lone voices who hold those views to account potentially get dogpiled by those seeking to ratio criticism of the original poster.
Donald Trump is a past master of this, the whole MAGA movement is in essence an attempt to drown out critique and comeback. When he was merely a celebrity you could safely ignore him, yet the moment he came down the escalator he sucked out all the oxygen in the press for the next eight years. And this is the inherent problem with unaccountable freedom of speech, namely those who command the biggest attention are invariably the ones in the direst need of being held to account.
Gender critical feminists decry protests and any attempts to utilise freedom of speech against them. The right to speak is not the right to be heard or the right for an audience to be silent. It is the tool of the oppressor to demand de facto outright silence when they speak. Silence is a sign of respect, sign that the speaker is wanted by the audience; heckling and noise are forms of protest against whatever the speaker is saying. No-one has the absolute right to silence when they speak, they must earn the respect of the audience first. Otherwise, you end up with tyrannical imposition of silence at the end of legal threats.
Which is why the women’s rights movement is so toxic. Let women speak, Kelly-Jay Keen’s personal crusade, has no right to absolute speech. It has the right to speak, but not the right to be heard or to be heard in silence. Protest is legitimate free speech as much as a person on a soapbox. If you expect revenant silence and uncritical applause you are setting yourself up as a petti tyrant clamouring for followers. No-one has the right to speak uncritically, because human society is all about the comeback, the observation, and the right of reply.
Which leads to the right to be ignored. Many exclusionary feminists hate being ignored, they need the oxygen of publicity to promote their views, otherwise they would simply have no outlet for their reactionary perspectives. Maya Forstater, Helen Joyce, and Kathleen Stock all use their media platforms to promote their version of biological understanding, yet the moment there is pushback they accuse their critics of attempting to stifle free speech. No speech is free from consequence, and all speech is free to be ignored. Yet, due to the power they have been given by the media, simply ignoring them is not possible. Critique, turning them into comedy routines, and highlighting how the Empresses really have no clothes is part of living in a democratic society.
Yet, bullying harassment, doxing, death threats, and acts of violence are never conscionable. Freedom of speech does not extend to freedom to hate and freedom of violence. Democratic conversation relies on freedom from fear, and thus anyone who uses violence or threats of violence to achieve their ends is thwarting those democratic principles. This extends to Helen Joyce’s delightful observation that British society should prevent trans folk from legally existing in the public sphere. No-one should live in fear, yet no-one should expect that their freedom of speech is an absolute right to be heard uncritically or in silence.
When exclusionary feminists argue for the right to be heard they often demand the right to do so uncritically and without protest. This is undemocratic. It harms all discourse when one side demands uncritical speech while tearing apart the views of others. Trans folk demand the right to simply exist as themselves, exclusionary feminism argues for gender apartheid that would exclude all trans women from their lawful rights. Without critique or criticism exclusionary feminism is simply a moral vacuum hovering up all the intellectual oxygen in the room, demanding that we simply believe what they say without any right to push back or protest. And this is why the right to ignore their speech is desperately needed, though for the moment the right to protest and make as much noise as possible is still fundamental to pushing back against them.
