Free speech is an endless struggle for humanity for a long time. It is mostly one of the pillars of democracy but there are aspects of it. The arguments about free speech can't ever be solved through morality window, but people are only approaching from that side. I can't exactly provide a guide or a definition for free speech. I also don't think I know a lot more than everyone else about this. But I think I understand HOW this concept is becoming a problem.
First, you can oversimplify free speech as "everyone can say whatever they want". How would you come up with this idea? It is probably because someone is silencing you in some way, like a dictator figure or something. So you encounter the oppression by defending "we have a right to talk". This is basically about being able to object a regulation or a rule or an order or criticizing the rulers. So from this perspective, of course no one has the bigger authority over anyone else and no one can just determine the facts or rules or determine the framework of arguments. There has to be a freedom of speech and it must be protected.
But, if you look at free speech from the normal people's perspective, instead of the ruler-ruled relationship, you basically mean "I can say whatever I want". Well, this is problematic. Because there is a much bigger context here, like propagating harmful behavior or etc. and unchecked speech is dangerous. In this case, you automatically mount some responsibility. So it must turn into "responsible free speech".
So the difficulty arises when you try to balance the scale of free speech according to context. If you put a figure on top of people to regulate it, you are not much different than a dictator. If you let it be unchecked, people will take advantage of it. (Also the rulers will skew it for their own authocracy) Ultimately, this is the point there people start presenting arguments from different aspects, either limiting or allowing free speec. But most of the arguments are concentrated around morality. For example, do you have free speech to publicly insult a religion or a religious group? Do you have free speech to publicly insult a political view or its supporters? Can you publicly say curse words about a person or a known figure? Most of these are about moral values, and they have some valid points. But in the end, this is a narrow perspective.
There are other aspects of unchecked free speech too. What about disinformation or misinformation? What about giving children the wrong ideas, like drug abuse? What about financial market manipulation? What about advocating for provacative or disruptive behaviors? What about mocking a religion or a religious figure? These aspects are mostly left out when people argue about the level of free speech. From some of these this perspectives, you may end up being overprotective and regulate public speech too much. I can understand the reasoning but that turns into partial freedom. It eventually leads to regulators allowing their views free and block the other ideas. So the problem is real but the solutions are not ideal.
Going back to the morality aspect of free speech, some people just contradict themselves in this manner. Like a Christian condemning insults against Christianity but making fun of Indian gods. People usually lack the empathy and assume they have the right to set the scale of free speech. Because the concept becomes emotional for them. So, due to people being self-centric and the they miss other people's aspects, you can't solve the problem of free speech yourself. It is much broader.
So I think, the real problem is somewhat caused by people themselves. When someone is given authority, they go beyond their limits and try to set the stage. If you let everyone play by their rules, they usually lack the empathy and start being biased. I said "responsible free speech" above, and this must be the starting point. You have to always keep in mind "is this harmful in any way". I believe people should have freedom of speech of their opinions, but no freedom to insult or attack or manipulate.
There are many ways to express objection against an idea or a person. You don't have to try to bring it down, you don't have to be subversive. There are peaceful ways to express the mistakes or defend your view. You only have to try to be factual and analytical. But even then, I know in this world, most people will still lock you up for a tweet. Because unfortunately, we are giving power to governments to be authoritarian and they are taking advantage of it.
Even if you try to be sensitive and responsible and there is a government that is protecting your freedom, you can't guarantee your speech will not indirectly cause harm. We have internet today and the concept of free speech is almost embedded in our lives. Your reach is far bigger than it used to be. Even if you state a fact or an opinion on a matter, you might trigger someone in some way. So it should be hard to just "tweet" something, considering the potential harm. This aspect is also mostly overlooked by free speech supporters and frequently used as an excuse by governments.
Apart from people's intentions, here are the basic key facts. What is the main ingredient of free speech? Is it opinions or facts? Facts should never be subjects for free speech if they don't include interpretations or implications, to avoid manipulations or indirect harm. But if you are talking about free speech for opinions, which subjects are you covering in your free speech framework? After that, for each subject, how will you decide what is harmful and what is not. The answers to these questions can turn into a whole book, which is why I don't think I can have a full free speech framework here. It feels like you have to have a different subsection for thousands of different circumstances or areas in life.
The dilemma of free speech can't ever be solved in this world and I am sorry to tell you this. There are millions of people who think "freedom is only theirs". Most governments are slipping towards authoritarian regimes to protect their regin, and lost of people approve this behaviour. Utopion free-speechers are missing the disinformation side of things. Free speech and freedom are not concrete independant circles and they overlap with other people's territories. We treat it like it is some puzzle with a certain universal solution, which is irresponsible all by itself. The humankind needs to be able to navigate through the situations, while also being mindful. You are free to do that. See you at the next post :)
Leave a comment