Speech and Aggression

Can you hear me?
Can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running?
Can  you hear me calling you?
--Mike and the Mechanics

Leftists increasingly argue that hurtful speech is a form of physical aggression. They cite research suggesting that people who hear/read speech they don't like can develop physical problems. This is supposed to 'prove' that unpalatable speech is no different than being physical accosted by an aggressor.

It follows, then, that speech needs to be controlled, presumably by government, to limit the physical damage.

But this argument conveniently ignores some important differences between speech and physical aggression. With a few notable exceptions, people on the receiving end of speech that they dislike can walk away. Someone being attacked on the street rarely has that luxury.

More to the point, speech can only 'hurt' if people choose to let it in. Between hurtful speech and actual 'hurt' is choice. Individuals who are hurt by words have made a decision. They have decided to admit those words to their internal psyches and let them do damage. The sender of those words has no control over that process.

Rather, it is completely in control of the receiver.

To rightly claim bodily harm, receivers of 'hate speech' must do far more than demonstrate that unpalatable words from a sender caused them physical harm. They must also demonstrate why they didn't leave or avoid the scene of those words and, even then, why those words were aggressively forced into their minds by someone else instead of being self imposed.