In Defence of Free Speech
- poetryfortheinsane
- Jan 11, 2022
- 12 min read
I’ve been thinking about our right to freedom of speech a lot lately, and I’m getting worried.
That’s probably not the best way to start a blog post, but it’s the truth. Every where I look, I see one of two things; people either want to police what you can and cannot say, or they don’t care. And to be honest, I don’t know which is more frightening. I believe that Freedom of Speech is one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society. Every extremist regime, whether on the far left or the far right, has sought to stifle it, and I think it’s the one thing that can keep society balanced and sane. And yet, both the government and private individuals keep chipping away at this right and we are doing nothing. And if we want to avoid tyranny, that needs to end.
Now, you may be asking why any of this matters or why you should care. So, let me explain further.
(This is a little tricky to explain, so bear with me) When we speak, what we are really doing is expressing what we think, and so, our words are an extension of our thoughts, and conversations are an enhanced version of our internal dialogue. It is the ability to contemplate, that separates us from animals. You see, when animals are faced with a new problem, they act out whatever solution is hardwired into their brains. But it’s not so with us.
When we are faced with a new problem, what do we do? Obviously, we think. We contemplate the situation and work out all the possible solutions. Then we imagine what would happen if we acted out those solutions and decide which would fail and which would work, picking the best possible one.
When we are having a conversation or an argument, it’s the same process that takes place, just on a larger scale. If you and I have differing views on the solution to a problem or the answer to a question, what we are really doing when we argue is seeing how viable our ideas actually are in the real world.
We are essentially making our ideas fight to the death like intellectual gladiators with the knowledge that the idea that wins the argument is the more accurate solution of the two.
It’s a form of collective thinking/problem solving.
But for this to happen properly, we need complete freedom of speech. How can we know whether the ideas we hold are correct if some of them are off limits during a discussion? And while it may not amount to much if you and I are wrong on an individual level, there are certain ideas (memes), such as political views, that are held by large sections of society. Ideologies of this scale influence society on an imaginable level and if they are wrong, you better pick a god and pray that we find out.
Now, while almost all of us would agree with that, there are some who would say that there are exceptions to it. They would say that there are some ideas that are ‘sacred’ in some way, and therefore beyond criticism (by sacred, I mean something deserving utmost respect and is not limited to religious ideas). But I disagree. I believe that no idea is so sacred that it is beyond criticism and ridicule.
In the marketplace of ideas, you need to show why your beliefs are valid.
To do this, you need to face ridicule and criticism and then show why that criticism isn’t valid. You can’t simply assert by fiat that you’re correct. Anybody can do that and it proves nothing. To do so usually indicates that there is something about your idea that will not hold up to scrutiny. Besides, if what you believe in is actually true, why would you fear any criticism? Shouldn’t you be able to defend it?
Even if you disagree with me on the topic of ‘sacred’ ideas, that is still only your opinion. It may be sacred to you, but it is not so to me. And to borrow a phrase often used by anarchists, you do not speak for me. So by all means, live your little life without questioning your ideas and world-view. But do not ask the same of me.
(If my tone comes across as a little annoyed, just note that my ire is directed at the imaginary opponents one pictures when writing out an argument, and not at you, the reader).
As the late (and great) Christopher Hitchens so humorously put it; ‘I am perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home... That is absolutely fine. But they are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don’t bring the toys to my house. Don’t say my children must play with these toys. Don’t say that my toys are not allowed by their toys. I am not going to have any of that.’
Now obviously, ‘toys’ in this context is a metaphor for ideas. But doesn’t that seem a fair proposition?
You are free to do as you please, believe what you wish to, and say what you want to say. Just have the common decency to offer me the same degree of freedom, even if you happen to disagree with me.
Every single time we speak, we risk offending or hurting someone’s feelings. But that doesn’t stop us from speaking, does it? Then why are ‘hurt feelings’ or ‘religious sensitivity’ valid excuses to impose laws that limit speech?
Now, you may respond to my question by saying that it’s not about hurt feelings or sensitivity, but about ‘misinformation’ or my views being wrong. But let me ask you this: how do you know? All of us think that we are right. Unless we are acting out of malice, we do and say things because we believe that it is right to do so. The very reason that I am writing this is because I believe that my views on this issue are the correct ones. Isn’t the same true of you?
So how do we know?
Maybe you’ll suggest that we refer the question to an authority or expert on the area. But this still doesn’t mean that what this authority says is “true” in any objective way. If objective truth even exists, humans are hopelessly unprepared to find it. The best science can do is offer a subjective truth, something that we believe is true for now, but might change in the future if we find new evidence. Let me give you an example.
Take for instance the fact that the earth is round. There was a time when the best minds on the planet believed that the world was flat. At that time, wouldn’t the idea that the earth was a globe be considered ‘misinformation’? Wouldn’t someone who proposed that idea be mocked and humiliated by the intellectuals of the age? So what makes the present any different? Science has certainly gotten better, but it’s not perfect and it never will be. The same applies for ideas that aren’t so easily covered by science such as political and religious ideas.
What does this have to do with free speech, you ask? My point is this: there is nothing that we are 100% certain of. Everything has some level of doubt behind it, no matter how small. Ergo, you must confess that there’s a possibility that you are wrong, just like it’s possible that I am wrong. But then, if you are wrong, doesn’t this also mean that the law that supports your view and stifles mine is wrong as well? Do you see my point?
Even if I’m wrong, as I very well might be, it seems to me that the best remedy is to present the truth and explain why I’m wrong; not to just insist that you are right without explaining why. That helps no one. We need to know why you believe the things that you do, and why it is wrong for me to believe in what I do. To simply silence someone without any explanation only increases hidden resentment and opens the floor to conspiracy theories.
Take for instance my earlier example of a ‘flat earth’. In case you didn’t know, there actually are a few conspiracy theorists out there who believe that the world is flat and that ‘THEY’ (whoever the fuck that may be) are lying to us to keep us ignorant. Now, if social media corporations were to suddenly shut down all the pages and channels dedicated to promoting the flat earth theory without any explanation, what would happen? Those who believe in it would point to that and say ‘See? They shut us down without even telling us why. Obviously they are threatened by us and don’t want the masses to wake up to the truth.’ And seeing that they were indeed being censored, more people would seriously consider their position and perhaps even join this group.
In my opinion, a better solution would be to let those people continue to spread their views, but also provide a platform for scientists and other scientifically literate people to explain why the earth is in fact spherical and not flat.
Why?
To take someone off the web simply says ‘We believe that they are wrong.’ But a post or a video ‘debunking’ the flat earth concept would not only show that those people are wrong, but would also explain why. This allows people to think for themselves and know the arguments for and against their own position instead of just parroting something that they were told.
As absurd and silly as this example is, it does demonstrate my point. Despite what the cynics may say, people are not sheep.
What we need is not someone who tells us what to think, but rather someone who gives us all the facts and allows us to come to our own conclusions.
Even if the conclusions we come to on our own happen to be wrong, I believe that risk to be worthwhile if it means that we afford people the dignity of not being treated as mere children and told what we may say, think, and do.
But be that as it may, I feel as if I’m wasting my breath (or more accurately fingers) trying to convince you of my position. Even if you agree with me on this issue, apart from not censoring others in our daily lives, we are almost powerless to do anything real to protect this freedom unless we insist that the government lives up to these values.
If you are wondering how a government, in this case the Sri Lankan one (I assume that like me, most of my readers will be from Sri Lanka as well), may limit a person’s freedom of speech, let me explain. We have a large number of laws that limit what we may say, such as our blasphemy laws, laws on misinformation, and as I have just been informed by a news update, a law against the defamation of courts as well.
Yes, we may have gotten used to these laws and so don’t notice them anymore, but that still doesn’t mean that such laws have any place in a democratic country. It seems to me that we as a nation have forgotten one very important fact:
The Government is here to serve us, the public, and not the other way around.
There is a reason that state employees are referred to as ‘public servants’. And as such, a government should not, and indeed cannot, impose laws that limit the rights of its citizens without a just cause. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and this shouldn’t be limited by the government in any form. Rights aren’t things that are just gifted to us by the government out of the goodness of their hearts. The presumption is that we have all of the rights until it can be proven that these rights interfere with somebody else’s rights. We are not here to live under the authoritarian whims of whatever government is in power.
While running the risk of a free van ride, I think it must be said that we are not the subjects of King Gotabaya, but rather the ones to whom he and all other politicians must answer to. And while it’s true that the public as a whole remains indifferent to this lack of freedom, it is precisely this that must change for our situation to improve.
Of course, the same argument does apply to every nation. It’s just that Sri Lanka is of the most immediate concern to you (probably) and I.
Even if you don’t find my arguments convincing and believe that some forms of speech must be shut down, let me ask you this.
Who do you trust to wield this power?
The Government? Surely not. If history has taught us anything, it’s that governments are always corrupt. It’s only the extent of corruption that changes. And so, this power is almost guaranteed to be misused.
And even if you are right and by some divine miracle we bestow this power upon an incorruptible government, what happens afterwards? Will they maintain power forever? No matter how noble their cause and achievements, every political group must lose public favour at some point. And so this power to shut down speech will almost definitely end up in the hands of reprehensible and corrupt individuals eventually; if not in this government, then in the next. What then? It will inevitably lead to some form of tyranny.
Now, putting my personal views aside, most people do have firm limits on what can and cannot fly under the banner of free speech; the perfect example of this being an ‘incitement to violence’. For example, if I gave a speech on a large public platform and repeatedly asked the crowd to kill a particular person or a group, most of you would agree that that can be, and ought to be, prosecuted. That’s relatively black and white in the sense that it’s not too difficult to firmly define what the term ‘incitement to violence’ does and does not limit.
However, much of the free speech debate of today revolves around more abstract terms such as ‘hate speech’, that are far harder, and perhaps even impossible to define.
How do you define Hate Speech?
Is it speech that is motivated by hate? Speech that spreads hate? Then are we no longer allowed to hate people? Or is it hate that is based on prejudice? But then, prejudice is a necessary part of life. We make decisions based on presuppositions and value judgements all the time and it’s only a problem when it unfairly discriminates. But even then, should it be made illegal?
What about something like racism? It’s a narrow-minded view, but should it be made illegal? If yes, how do you define racism? And who decides on these definitions? How do we know that they don’t have their own nefarious agenda? And what do we do if we disagree with these definitions?
That’s a lot of rhetorical questions, I know. But I have asked them in the form of questions specifically because I don’t know the answers to them, nor have I heard any answers that are satisfactorily well thought out. There’s no way to define such terms in a manner that is satisfactory to all. It’s highly subjective and so isn’t fit to be made into law.
But moving on, on a rather different note, my final objection to censorship is one that most artists are personally familiar with, that is, the stifling and choking of creativity in art when artists, who are the visionaries of society, are forced to walk on eggshells for fear of causing offence.
Art at its best confronts, disturbs, and threatens your complacent peace of mind. That’s the whole point of Art.
It’s the role of the artist to drag to light the aspects of a society that it chooses to ignore.
Art is meant to walk all over taboos with impunity, to go precisely where we are told not to go, and to satirise and poke fun at those in power. How can any of this happen in a world of censorship?
The same goes for the enemy of all great art: self censorship. This is of course a far subtler issue, but it’s equally pressing. It seems to me that it’s not enough to merely protect free speech through law, but that we must also encourage it as a society. Even if there are no legal consequences, it’s fairly obvious that if people can ‘cancel’ you for saying something that goes against their beliefs or is unpopular, then there will be very few people saying what they actually believe and making what they want to make. And that is an undesirable outcome, even if for nothing more than the sake of diversity.
Look, we’re not babysitting children here. We need to learn to listen to what others have to say, even if we don’t want to hear it, so that we don’t just lock ourselves up in an echo chamber where everybody agrees with everything you say. It is extremely unhealthy to never be exposed to a differing opinion, though it is becoming more and more common in the age of the internet. No matter what people may say, diversity matters, and not just the superficial diversity of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. that’s pushed by the Left, but rather true diversity, that is Intellectual Diversity.
What’s the point of speaking if you’re just going to parrot what everyone else is saying? What’s the point of speaking if you’re just repeating a set of opinions that are pre-approved by the state? What’s the point of speaking if you’re only going to say what people want you to say? We need the freedom to be exposed to those who disagree with us, for this is the glue that holds our civilisation together.
And I think that the crux of this whole tirade can be laid out quite simply in that often repeated phrase:
‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.
Comments