
'Codes of Conduct: Speech Bans Are Poor Strategy' 256
This raises the broader question of whether speech bans in general are a good idea and serve effectively to advance positive goals, or not. To explore this issue with less emotion, let's make up a fantasy example. Let's say that a rumor arises that people who are genetically able to taste phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) are better at coding. The rumor goes viral. Job seekers with the supposedly favorable status put it on their LinkedIn page and try to send genetic test results to prospective employers, along with their resumes.
Those unable to taste PTC try to suppress the rumor, fail, organize protests, and finally resort to speech bans regarding PTC status. People who brag about their tasting status, point out that someone else is a non-taster, or even just try to discuss the topic itself more generally, lose their positions on open source projects and even in some cases their jobs.
Do these punished individuals then realize the error of their ways? By no means: they are now martyrs, drift in a more radical direction, and become leaders of PTC taster groups who feel they are victims of reverse discrimination. They form secret online groups in which genetic data must be submitted to join, and they quietly meet in person to show off tasting abilities in blind tests. They bond and form communities which reinforce their superior identity as tasters. Believing that 'tasters are better coders' is now regarded as Secret Banned Knowledge.
Statisticians try to point out that even if the claim is true, such a correlation is not usefully predictive since great coders are found among both tasters and non-tasters. They further point out that this means finding good coders requires testing for those skills regardless of PTC status, so what difference does it really make? Meanwhile the general public looks on, notices the speech ban, and decides that if such extreme action must be taken against the Secret Banned Knowledge, that knowledge must be powerful indeed, and true.
Perhaps speech bans worked better in the old days, before the internet enabled outcasts to find each other, but in any case they don't seem to work well now, as we see with racist speech bans in Europe. One can even make the case that this heavy-handed way of trying to solve social problems was one factor (among many) that helped elect Trump president.
So if speech bans aren't the answer, what is? How do we persuade people to step away from incorrect biased views and treat others better? Sadly, there are no easy answers, just difficult work. We can divide the world needing persuading into two groups: (A) those who can be persuaded with rational discussion, and (B) the others. For group A, we use rational discussion. For group B, we need to look at why they are in such desperate need of identity and community that they latch onto false stories of their superiority. For those with the stomach for it, we can try to copy the success of Daryl Davis, the African-American musician who has converted over two dozen white supremacists away from their old beliefs -- by befriending them. This is how hearts and minds are changed, one by one.