In his crusade to see Twitter and Facebook remove homophobic material from their platforms, Elton John deserves scorn and repudiation. While homophobic material is indeed deeply offensive to most individuals, restricting freedom of speech is far more individually and socially offensive.
Still, the British singer at least deserves credit for his honesty. Elton John, who has made hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to his talents of free expression, was last week asked the following by the BBC’s Kirsty Wark.
“You talk about the tech giants and you talk about the fact that they have got a public responsibility, but of course you do know that there is some absolutely horrific homophobic material on social media.”
Elton John’s response was direct. “I don’t know why [social media companies] allow it, you know it’s supposed to be free speech but the things that are on social media are so disgusting that there has to be action taken by the people who own these companies, that run these companies, that say, ‘Enough is enough. We’re spreading hate, we’re spreading hate.’ And you know, people say, ‘Well, what about my freedom of speech?’ Sod your freedom of speech.”
Elton John’s attitude is thus clear: Some speech on issues of public concern is more deserving of protection than other speech.
This is the exact opposite approach to the Founders’ First Amendment, which prefers maximum public dialogue on matters of public interest. It is for that reason that so-called “hate speech” receives the most stringent free speech protections. Unlike in European nations we believe that individuals should be able to express their viewpoints even — no, especially — when those viewpoints cause great offense. We do so as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts explained, because we must “protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
But there’s a catch in this tale: Elton John is deeply hypocritical when it comes to what he believes is acceptable speech and what is not acceptable. Because the singer has also said that he wishes to “ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it.” This is necessary, he says, because religion turns people into “hateful lemmings.”
Now maybe I’m being delusional, but I would venture that were a religious social media user to see those comments posted online they would be grossly offended. Yet to Elton John, their sense of offense is irrelevant, whereas his sense of offense is supreme and must be obeyed. The singer takes this approach because he believes his viewpoint is intrinsically more moral than that of religious individuals. It’s both arrogant and immoral. For him, there is no limiting principles — it’s just about him imposing his views instead of you imposing yours. That’s an inherently nihilistic, or at least solipsitic, approach to public life, involving all the subtlety of a three-year-old.
