Freedom of speech, despite being a fundamental principle of liberal democracy going back to the Enlightenment, has recently become a dirty word. Why? Because in today's regressive environment, freedom of speech misunderstood. One misunderstanding essentially boils down to the fact that defending someone's right to free speech is not the same as endorsing their views. These two things get conflated all the time, probably because people are not well educated in history and civics, and NGOs, government officials, and even journalists are increasingly exploiting people's ignorance about freedom of speech.
Also, and I'm not going to mince words here, many people today who should know better are cowards and ideologues. Even most "liberals," no longer have the stomach to defend freedom of speech when it is used by someone they disagree with. People often argue that, "Hate speech isn't free speech," or, "We should crack down on misinformation." The problem is, it doesn't work like that. Free speech is all or nothing. The American Civil liberties Union historically held that:
"History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us...then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are 'indivisible.'"
Setting aside the thorny issue of what actually constitutes offensive speech, it's important to understand that we don't tolerate offensive speech because we agree with it. We tolerate offensive speech because that is the price we pay for being able to criticize the state. This is a key point to understand. In what follows, I'll break this point down, as well as the 3 other important reasons why freedom of speech is misunderstood today:
Also, and I'm not going to mince words here, many people today who should know better are cowards and ideologues. Even most "liberals," no longer have the stomach to defend freedom of speech when it is used by someone they disagree with. People often argue that, "Hate speech isn't free speech," or, "We should crack down on misinformation." The problem is, it doesn't work like that. Free speech is all or nothing. The American Civil liberties Union historically held that:
"History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us...then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are 'indivisible.'"
Setting aside the thorny issue of what actually constitutes offensive speech, it's important to understand that we don't tolerate offensive speech because we agree with it. We tolerate offensive speech because that is the price we pay for being able to criticize the state. This is a key point to understand. In what follows, I'll break this point down, as well as the 3 other important reasons why freedom of speech is misunderstood today:
A Brief History of Free Speech
This post mostly deals with the rational for free speech in the modern context, but by way of a brief history, the concept of free speech dates back to ancient Greece. Diogenes, the famous Cynic philosopher who I've written about before, believed strongly in parrhesia, or candid speech, which he considered the finest thing in the world. By parrhesia, Diogenes meant the courage and capacity to say whatever one thinks is right, in whatever way might be effective, to whoever needs to hear it, no matter the consequences.
During the Classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government, at least in some settings.
The American political concept of free speech as embodied in the First Amendment to American Constitution, originated partly with the thought of philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries like John Locke, Montesquieu and Spinoza, among others.
In the United States, under the broad protections guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, freedom of speech is a civil right, and even offensive or hateful speech is legally protected speech. The only restrictions on speech are for incitement, libel, or threats of violence, for example.
Having the freedom to criticize government is an historical anomaly; for most of human history, people were not allowed to criticize the monarch or government. Nevertheless, there seems to be an attack on free speech coming from private corporations, citizens, and government. That the government would want to censor is a given. That is what it has always done, which is why the American founders specifically protected citizens by guaranteeing the right to free speech.
Let's break down the 4 reasons why free speech is misunderstood today in more detail:
During the Classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government, at least in some settings.
The American political concept of free speech as embodied in the First Amendment to American Constitution, originated partly with the thought of philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries like John Locke, Montesquieu and Spinoza, among others.
In the United States, under the broad protections guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, freedom of speech is a civil right, and even offensive or hateful speech is legally protected speech. The only restrictions on speech are for incitement, libel, or threats of violence, for example.
Having the freedom to criticize government is an historical anomaly; for most of human history, people were not allowed to criticize the monarch or government. Nevertheless, there seems to be an attack on free speech coming from private corporations, citizens, and government. That the government would want to censor is a given. That is what it has always done, which is why the American founders specifically protected citizens by guaranteeing the right to free speech.
Let's break down the 4 reasons why free speech is misunderstood today in more detail:
1. Defending Someone's Right to Free Speech Isn't the Same as Endorsing Their Views
As I mentioned in the introduction, those of us with liberal (and not authoritarian) values, defend free speech not because we always agree with what someone says, but because we oppose the government's historical tendency to put restrictions on the speech of citizens. Allowing restrictions on legal speech is akin to letting the camel's get nose under the tent; it surely won't stop there.
This is a key point to understand. Free speech advocates don't endorse every crazy thing that someone says, but they do oppose the government's historical tendency to censor, which is a very slippery slope as we will see in number 3 below.
Just because you defend someone’s right to speak freely does not mean you agree with the content of their speech. You could vigorously disagree with what they are saying but still defend their right to say it. Why?
Because, as I mentioned above, tolerating offensive speech is the price we pay for being able to also use the power of free speech to criticize the government (especially when it becomes necessary to do so, like during the American Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and so on, which I'll get to later).
This is a key point to understand. Free speech advocates don't endorse every crazy thing that someone says, but they do oppose the government's historical tendency to censor, which is a very slippery slope as we will see in number 3 below.
Just because you defend someone’s right to speak freely does not mean you agree with the content of their speech. You could vigorously disagree with what they are saying but still defend their right to say it. Why?
Because, as I mentioned above, tolerating offensive speech is the price we pay for being able to also use the power of free speech to criticize the government (especially when it becomes necessary to do so, like during the American Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and so on, which I'll get to later).
2. Popular Speech Does Not Always Need Protection
Second, protecting unpopular speech, is the point of having free speech as a civil right in the first place. Speech that the majority agrees with, whether right or wrong, doesn’t usually need to be defended.
This is not to say that what is popular is always correct. For example, racial segregation was popular in the US in the Jim Crow South. De-segregationists eventually won that argument, however, and convinced people that racial segregation was wrong. Moreover, John Lewis, a Civil Rights activist involved in that movement, has said that they were only able to successfully end segregation because of free speech rights.
This is one example of why censorship is not the answer in an open society. The answer is to counter bad ideas and bad arguments with good ideas and good arguments in an open dialog and let people make up their own minds. Allow people to make their own decisions without censoring information, and to persuade them to come around to your way of thinking.
This is not to say that what is popular is always correct. For example, racial segregation was popular in the US in the Jim Crow South. De-segregationists eventually won that argument, however, and convinced people that racial segregation was wrong. Moreover, John Lewis, a Civil Rights activist involved in that movement, has said that they were only able to successfully end segregation because of free speech rights.
This is one example of why censorship is not the answer in an open society. The answer is to counter bad ideas and bad arguments with good ideas and good arguments in an open dialog and let people make up their own minds. Allow people to make their own decisions without censoring information, and to persuade them to come around to your way of thinking.
3. Censorship is a Slippery Slope, "Misinformation" is a Problematic Concept
If you allow the government, NGOs, and social media corporations to start cherry picking what you can say, it is a slippery slope. You can’t allow the government or social media corporations to pick and choose what speech they will allow (beyond clearly illegal speech like threats of violence against someone and so on.)
Once something becomes a target of censorship, it surely won't stop there. This is akin to the proverbial metaphor of the camel's nose getting under the tent; permitting a small, seemingly innocuous act will open the door for bigger, undesirable actions. Governments and corporations throughout history have tended to become more authoritarian or oligarchical, and to exaggerate threats to consolidate power.
Progressives, and those fighting for social justice would do well to remember this. Ira Glasser, who was the storied head of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1978-2001, argues that if the government (or social media in my opinion) censors a neonazi, for example, it can later then turn around and use that same power to censor anyone deemed a radical or a threat to the status quo. And not just now, but in the future.
It follows then, that if you are working for any kind of social justice, etc. and you oppose free speech, you are actively subverting your own cause. If not right now, then perhaps in the future. This is because the type of person who is deemed a radical or threat to the status quo changes all the time with the shifting sands of political correctness or public opinion. If you let the state or social media put arbitrary restrictions on what people can and can't say, sooner or later, public opinion will shift, and it will be you or your group who gets censored.
"Misinformation," is a problematic concept as well, especially if that is the basis on which censorship is called for. I broke all of this down in a video I made back in 2021.
It's important to understand that public opinion, and availability of accurate information on which to base decisions, changes all the time. Government bureaucrats are human, and caught up in this ever-changing milieu. Like the rest of us, they are subject to cognitive and partisan biases, and not qualified to decide which ideas deserve protection and which are "misinformation," and deserve censorship. In the Supreme Court’s words, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”
Once something becomes a target of censorship, it surely won't stop there. This is akin to the proverbial metaphor of the camel's nose getting under the tent; permitting a small, seemingly innocuous act will open the door for bigger, undesirable actions. Governments and corporations throughout history have tended to become more authoritarian or oligarchical, and to exaggerate threats to consolidate power.
Progressives, and those fighting for social justice would do well to remember this. Ira Glasser, who was the storied head of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1978-2001, argues that if the government (or social media in my opinion) censors a neonazi, for example, it can later then turn around and use that same power to censor anyone deemed a radical or a threat to the status quo. And not just now, but in the future.
It follows then, that if you are working for any kind of social justice, etc. and you oppose free speech, you are actively subverting your own cause. If not right now, then perhaps in the future. This is because the type of person who is deemed a radical or threat to the status quo changes all the time with the shifting sands of political correctness or public opinion. If you let the state or social media put arbitrary restrictions on what people can and can't say, sooner or later, public opinion will shift, and it will be you or your group who gets censored.
"Misinformation," is a problematic concept as well, especially if that is the basis on which censorship is called for. I broke all of this down in a video I made back in 2021.
It's important to understand that public opinion, and availability of accurate information on which to base decisions, changes all the time. Government bureaucrats are human, and caught up in this ever-changing milieu. Like the rest of us, they are subject to cognitive and partisan biases, and not qualified to decide which ideas deserve protection and which are "misinformation," and deserve censorship. In the Supreme Court’s words, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”
4. The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance
Ira Glasser's quote: "The battle for civil liberties is never really won; it must be fought anew in each generation," illustrates the perpetual nature of the struggle for freedom.
The civil right to free speech must be defended. History has shown that progress in the realm of civil liberties is fragile. As norms and political landscapes shift, new threats to freedom of speech emerge. If, in this context of change, no one defends minority views, then by default, the government, NGOs, and corporations get to decide everything you hear. We saw this happen during the Covid Pandemic, which seems to have ushered in the death-throws of free speech and even the larger liberal world order.
Censorship is basically a refusal to accept the presence of ideas that challenge the status quo and serves to maintain a homogenized narrative, void of dissent or critical thinking. It also prevents the growth of knowledge, and allows those in power to manipulate public perception. Censorship encourages conformity and limits the potential for individual growth and societal change.
During the Covid pandemic for example, the only views we really heard were from the government and major pharmaceutical corporations (essentially one and the same on account of the cushy, revolving door relationship between corporation and regulator). Other views on the utility of lockdown, even those made by highly credentialed scientists and doctors, were ruthlessly suppressed, which lead to the deposition of various government officials in the legal case Missouri versus Biden, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Worse still, this trend is part of a larger tendency towards more authoritarian control of speech by governments around the world, corporations, and NGOs. Even the American Civil Liberties Union isn't the staunch defender of freedom of speech that it once was.
I for one, don't want to live in this brave new world.
The civil right to free speech must be defended. History has shown that progress in the realm of civil liberties is fragile. As norms and political landscapes shift, new threats to freedom of speech emerge. If, in this context of change, no one defends minority views, then by default, the government, NGOs, and corporations get to decide everything you hear. We saw this happen during the Covid Pandemic, which seems to have ushered in the death-throws of free speech and even the larger liberal world order.
Censorship is basically a refusal to accept the presence of ideas that challenge the status quo and serves to maintain a homogenized narrative, void of dissent or critical thinking. It also prevents the growth of knowledge, and allows those in power to manipulate public perception. Censorship encourages conformity and limits the potential for individual growth and societal change.
During the Covid pandemic for example, the only views we really heard were from the government and major pharmaceutical corporations (essentially one and the same on account of the cushy, revolving door relationship between corporation and regulator). Other views on the utility of lockdown, even those made by highly credentialed scientists and doctors, were ruthlessly suppressed, which lead to the deposition of various government officials in the legal case Missouri versus Biden, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Worse still, this trend is part of a larger tendency towards more authoritarian control of speech by governments around the world, corporations, and NGOs. Even the American Civil Liberties Union isn't the staunch defender of freedom of speech that it once was.
I for one, don't want to live in this brave new world.
Solutions
So, what can be done to protect free speech and save liberal democracy? The answer is really about education in the realm of history, civics, and critical thinking, as well as new organizations who will defend free speech in court and in the broader culture. Some excellent advocacy groups who have stood in the breach are:
New Civil Liberties Alliance
Citizens for Free Speech
People today also need to understand what we knew historically; being pro-free speech is not about condoning hateful or intolerant speech. Explain this to others when you hear them say that "Hate speech isn't free speech." We have strong protections on speech not because we agree with intolerant speech, but in order to stop the government from deciding what people can and cannot say, because free speech is all or nothing.
Stand up against censorship, even when it happens to those whom you disagree with. As Ira Glasser states, not speech, but "Censorship is the ultimate form of intolerance and control."
Ultimately, it is up to us to make sure that free speech rights are protected now and in the future. The first step is understanding why freedom of speech is so important, and the second is to loudly support freedom of speech.
I hope this post has helped elucidate common misunderstandings about this essential liberty.
~
Read Next:
How Propaganda Makes us Psychologically Totalitarian
How the Left-Right Political Spectrum Deceives Us
Why is Politics so Divisive?
New Civil Liberties Alliance
Citizens for Free Speech
People today also need to understand what we knew historically; being pro-free speech is not about condoning hateful or intolerant speech. Explain this to others when you hear them say that "Hate speech isn't free speech." We have strong protections on speech not because we agree with intolerant speech, but in order to stop the government from deciding what people can and cannot say, because free speech is all or nothing.
Stand up against censorship, even when it happens to those whom you disagree with. As Ira Glasser states, not speech, but "Censorship is the ultimate form of intolerance and control."
Ultimately, it is up to us to make sure that free speech rights are protected now and in the future. The first step is understanding why freedom of speech is so important, and the second is to loudly support freedom of speech.
I hope this post has helped elucidate common misunderstandings about this essential liberty.
~
Read Next:
How Propaganda Makes us Psychologically Totalitarian
How the Left-Right Political Spectrum Deceives Us
Why is Politics so Divisive?
