The recent circumstances and sequence of events that have arisen surrounding prominent figures such as Vox’s heavily left progressive Carlos Maza and right-wing conservative Canadian comedian Steven Crowder have caused a rather massive divide between otherwise likeminded individuals. I would rather like to assume the people, in general, love the idea of speech. Anyone with the ability to speak, would like to be able to speak freely. After all, our words are the medium we, as humans, use to communicate and interact with the world around us. The Maza-Crowder debacle has put speech straight and firm in the spotlight.

For anyone who is reading this and who might not be aware of what the Maza-Crowder situation is, let me give a brief overview. Carlos Maza, a write and contributor for Vox, came out with allegations and video evidence of apparent harassment and doxing coming from an individual named Steven Crowder. Maza claims that he has been, at multiple times, harassed and called homophobic slurs, where examples of which he posts in social media. Crowder then responds that he has never doxed or has called for the doxing of any individual, nor has he promoted the incitement of physical violence. Furthermore, he claims to only call Maza with these “slurs” because Maza calls he himself these slurs; which is entirely apparent and observable with one look at his social media accounts and usernames. Not only this, but Maza elevates the situation, no longer targeting Crowder’s arguments, but taking the fight to Youtube itself, where these videos were posted. Youtube, after a myriad of confusing developments, then acts on demonetizing Steven Crowder’s Youtube channel. Moreover, Youtube embarks on this crusade in the demonetization of other channels which share the same rhetoric, and at most times, political viewpoint, that Crowder has. Maza is not content with this though, he claims to want full de-platforming of Crowder himself, and the deletion of his Youtube channel. Youtube does not follow through with this, and comes under more fire from Maza and his supporters. In the same breath, Youtube is also under fire from Crowder and his supporters for the aforementioned demonetization, and calls this action a movement against free speech.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

This is a timeless, sometimes unguarded, and invisibly operating truth. No matter the role anyone plays in society, or whatever that specific anyone may take as their identity, the words one utters automatically, and even quite magically at times, produces actions in counter. Like Physics, the rule of cause and effect remains omnipresent. But as progress deems our definitions of words at times moot, it becomes quite challenging to capture the essence of these words so questions come necessary to ponder upon: What is speech? What is consequence? What is freedom? How we define these words then bind us to what we form as our understanding of these words.

Speech has always been delicate and abstract, but in this age of flourishing communication technology, with all the new software and online applications, redefining the meaning and essence of speech in general, the entire nature of speech has delved into the territory of the enigmatic. What is “speech” anyway, anymore? Are words printed on a network blasted publicly across different regions of the world speech? Common logic says it is. Is it still speech if it is privately presented? If it is not speech then is it free from consequence? Is speech thought? Are thoughts which go rather public, delivered through Twitter-fingers and Facebook shares become classified as speech? If not, then why? If yes, then how? In any case, the use of words through social media is now in its entirety the largest form of human connection and communication, and we are not entirely sure how it works. But we would like to pretend to.

Carlos Maza used the immense scale of the reach of social media to make his proclamations of being a victim of harassment and hate speech as grand as it could be. I would say that his claims and complaints about Steven Crowder were made not in coincidence, but in purpose to be directly at the beginning of Pride Month, to of course amplify the traction Maza wanted his claims to attain. It would be easy to assume that in all the time that he has felt bullied and harassed by Crowder, he was accumulating bullets to shoot Crowder, along with the embodying organization where the actions of Crowder are given a platform, down.

An overarching cause of divide here is the ambiguous definition of what hate speech really is. As most commonly, hate speech is directed by the narrative of the victim, where of course there would be great and grand biases, for better or for worse but definitely not for the objective truth. Legislation against hate speech is a double-edged sword, at all times fighting with the intention to fortify good, as it the intention of what I choose to believe the legislation was dawned from, but also at all times eliminating fundamental freedoms, such as the right to speak. If we give individuals power to dictate, subjectively, what offends them or harasses them are or are not, then we bend the legitimacy of law.

My gripe with this situation is this. Carlos Maza used his card of victimhood to catalyze a sequence of events, that he may or may not have calculated, which ultimately led to a result which benefitted his own personal political agenda, the silencing of other political views. The supposed victim in this situation, being Carlos Maza, did not use the power and influence at his disposal to start a conversation which may lead to the betterment of all, and instead used whatever he had to bring the demonetization hammer down on innocent bystanders. This is a dangerous precedent for things to come. Yes, Steven Crowder was insulting and offensive no doubt. But, in this case, the repercussions of the retaliation are far greater than the original crime committed. Almost all criticisms of Steven Crowder have blatant caveats to them. Indeed, Crowder calls Maza stereotypical names such as “queer”, “gay”, and “Latino”, but Maza refers to he himself these names quite blatantly and consistently to astounding self-awareness.

“Why does your right to freedom of speech trump another’s right not to be offended?”

As Jordan Peterson once said in counter to the question of “Why does your right to freedom of speech trump another’s right not to be offended?”, in order to be able to think one must risk being offensive. While the comedian Crowder is not always funny, nor is his jokes always in taste, he definitely has the right to make these jokes. As for Maza, even with the acknowledgement that Crowder’s words have hurt him in the past, he does not have the legal right, nor the moral standing, to de-platform Crowder, instigate a rally against the company, Youtube, and risk the income of several other Youtubers just because he felt uncomfortable.

Above, Maza’s tweets inciting physical violence and mobbing conservative figures.

What is most dangerous is the growing power of the mob given to people who are wrong who think they are sincerely right, because these people, and in turn the mob, will never stop, they will only grow more and more validated, and if denied, more and more assured. The important aspect here is to create a conversation, to somehow narrow the divide between conflicting ideologies, and hopefully reach a flourishing understanding on all parties involved. But what is happening is the complete opposite of this. The censorship and de-platforming of figures not directly aligned to one’s political or moral beliefs are disheartening, but not only that, it is also inherently counterintuitive to the cause one presents. Yes, Crowder should have apologized to Carlos Maza because the former offended the latter. But he should have only apologized to Maza because of clear human decency, not because of any form of logical or legal precedent. Maza on the other hand, had all the right to be offended, of course. Being on the receiving end of plenty stereotypical insults and becoming more often than not the butt of the jokes of a comedian is entirely unsettling, but to call for the censorship of anyone who offends you in any way is a faulty and immoral solution to an otherwise straight-to-the-point problem. The world as turned into a culture of “guilty until proven innocent”, taking advantage of the great power which lie within the applications of social media, and this has caused great distress between opposing parties, which only ever result in more discontent, everywhere, at any point in time. This is wrong. We must work together to be able to create a universal environment where conversation is appreciated, and not muted or turned down. Then, and only then, can we ever reach a point of genuine understanding.

Let a man speak, for the reception of his words by others will be the repercussion enough. Silence a man, and others will speak for him, more often louder, more often more brash, more often more volatile.