By LEIGH SLOAN

I, like you, would love to live a world that is free of hate, bigotry, violence, and oppression. It is a vision of what Thomas Sowell calls “cosmic justice.” It is what adherents to religion take hope in that their God or beliefs will lead them to. It is that sense of the way things should be. 

It is normal for human beings to seek cosmic justice that satisfies the soul in addition to the rule of law. However, when government gets in the business of enforcing cosmic justice, things can go terribly wrong. 

On Tuesday night the Anchorage Assembly introduced and passed a resolution the members believe will promote “civil discourse.” Let’s look at a few of some of the loaded terms that are peppered throughout the document. You may read it in its entirety here. 

Hate speech most often refers to any speech that disparages a social group or member of that group. Hate is attached to a person’s inner motive. One could wonder why we don’t use the term “disparaging speech.” Even though the term “disparaging” is subjective, it does a better job of pointing to the actual speech of the person rather than inserting itself into the person’s inner workings.

The term “hate” elevates the severity of the offender and effectively labels a person a “hater.” When the state of someone’s inner motives is being judged not by the speaker, but by the hearers, whoever has the most power gets to decide that person’s label. When we begin judging hate, we elevate ourselves as a judge and jury to shame the “offender.” 

Assembly Member Meg Zaletel wanted to make it clear that this is not a law with teeth. It is merely a “resolution.” So, is not yet about creating legal consequences.

Instead, it is an effort to shame those who do not internally ascribe to the values or loaded language held within. Once legislators shift from a focus on the concrete actions of constituents into judging our heart motives and values, our relationship with our government lacks protective boundaries.

Extremist: Whether or not someone is deemed extreme is subjectively based upon the opinions of the rest of the general population. What was labeled “extreme” in 1950 could be (and is often) commonplace today. The label of “extremism” is always based on the norms of the society around us— a moving target.

Was it extreme of Rosa Parks to refuse to be seated where people of color had been accustomed to sitting? It was extreme for that time, which was why she became famous for it. But most of us agree that we are thankful for her “extremist” stance.

Once upon a time, our country’s elected officials tried to stamp out “extremist” communists through McCarthyism. It was not our proudest moment as a nation— not one I’d care to repeat. 

Conspiracy Theories can be a problem and can sometimes spread more fear than necessary. However, some conspiracies are more than theories— they become true. The right to pursue a conspiracy theory is worth any risk it there may be to be deceived by it. It’s the right (and sometimes even duty) of any journalist to pursue conspiracies that have evidence attached, to find out whether or not they are justified.

Corruption in the Nixon administration, for example, was a conspiracy until it was found to be true. Calling something a conspiracy seeks to de-legitimize it. It is for each thinking adult to judge for ourselves. 

Misinformation is simply defined as false information. The problem comes when the government or government officials become the gatekeepers for what is true and what is false. That is why we have freedom of the press.

We cannot rely on the people with the power to be the sole arbiters of truth. In fact, the people with the power have a greater incentive to obscure the truth when much can be lost as a result of truth coming to the surface. We cannot stamp out “misinformation” without also forfeiting our freedom to think for ourselves. While it may be true that without “misinformation” we could enjoy a much more obedient population like communist China, it is not a goal most of us Anchorage residents aspire to.  

This resolution pays lip service to “freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the free exercise of religion.” In the same breath, it expresses to the political minority of Anchorage that those with differing political views are not welcome here. 

It ends with an impassioned plea for Anchorage residents to “join us by adopting these values into their own lives, calling attention to these harms, denouncing hate and extremism, and committing to the resolution of political disputes through and active peaceful civil discourse…” 

Yes, peaceful civil discourse is what we want, but this resolution creates more of an obstacle to civil discourse than a bridge.

The language elevates the Assembly to arbiters of cosmic justice—not in the job description of Anchorage Assembly members, last I checked. Their job as civil servants is to help do things like keep our streets clean, manage a reasonable budget, and maintain public safety. 

We plead with the Anchorage Assembly majority to stop the lectures, stop the sermons, and stop the condescension. It’s not helping. The cherry on top of the night, which Assemblyman Kevin Cross so aptly spoke to, was the fact that while discussing a resolution to encourage civil discourse, the Assembly majority allowed ZERO public discourse.

I hope you respond with your own personal resolution to not be discouraged or deterred, but to step up to amplify your voice in Anchorage like never before. Write public testimony, speak at public meetings, write letters to editors, and use your freedom of speech peaceably but firmly before you turn around and discover that it has vanished. 

Leigh Sloan is the host of Brave Nation podcast, available at Apple podcasts. The Brave Nation movement pursues courage and wisdom to enact cultural reform in every sphere of influence.