We are asked to quote: “share your thoughts on balancing free
speech with the responsibilities of individuals, platforms, and governments.” In any country where every citizen is equal
before and equally under the rule of law [Section 15.(1); Canadian Charter],
there is little distinction between and among citizens and governors or
governments. It is true that we all have
different functions in a rule of law society.
But not many. To be precise, the
3 functions are truth, argument and judgement. Where any “government”; whether
civic, provincial or federal; ensures that its citizens become proficient in
the 7 liberal arts (1. Grammar, 2. Rhetoric, 3. Logic [Trivium], 4. Arithmetic,
5. Music, 6. Geometry and 7. Astronomy
[Quadrivium]), there is little need for ”balancing” government responsibility to
keep us safe from lies, and harms caused by lying, with the “rights” of liars to
freely express their lies or, alternatively (if they are not liars), their
truths. But when you remove or ignore a
7 liberal arts education, then no such “balancing” is possible. One is headed toward either chaos or tyranny
because it becomes impossible to distinguish lying from truth. You end up with psychopaths “leading” or
“fleecing” (often both) citizens who are little different from sheep, or wolves. In short, humans can’t be rational animals
without the 7 liberal arts. They are the
mental disciplines by which we become actually rational animals as distinct
from being potentially rational animals. ARISTOTLE: Spoken words are the symbols of mental
experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men
have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the
mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as
also are those things of which our experiences are the images. [On Interpretation; Book I, Ch. 1; 2nd
paragraph] Above, Aristotle asserts that all
human beings express their mental experiences with words. Also we all talk
about mental experiences obtained by means of images of things which are
requote THE SAME FOR ALL. These common human
experiences form the bases upon which British Common Law nations and their
derivative “Constitutional” governments have derived their functions and powers
according to the principle of “consent of the governed”. It is that “consent” which makes for either a
constitutional government or, in its absence, a tyranny. This is a short essay, so I have
chosen to demonstrate the “thinking” or mental experience of a government
tyrant of the Judicial Branch, named Paul Schabas, in the Jordan Peterson
application for Judicial Review of the decision of a complaints committee of
The College of Psychologists of Ontario.
The committee decided that Peterson required a remedial course in public
internet speaking, at his own expense, upon mostly unspecified terms and duration. Peterson and his legal team asked that the
decision be quashed and that several requirements of the Ontario Psychologist’s
Code of Conduct be decreed to be contrary to Section 2. (b). of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allegedly “guarantees” Free Speech
(“Freedom of Expression”). When a
government official of the Judicial Branch, such as Paul Schabas, affirms the
violation of the freedom of expression (speech) of a Canadian citizen, he
simultaneously breaches that citizen’s right to a fair hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, contrary to Section 11. (d) of the same
Charter. Schabas did not provide Peterson a
“fair hearing”. He proved his bias by lying twice and arguing twice in his
written judgment. In logic, the entire
judgment is more of a sustained argument against Peterson’s application than an
impartial judgment. Schabas’ first lie is at paragraph
5. where he writes, “I have concluded that the application should be dismissed.
In my view … etc. That statement is a lie because 3
Judges and 18 lawyers respectively argued and reviewed Peterson’s application
for Judicial Review for one day in open Court! Those proceedings were then reviewed by 3
Judges before their written decision. Schabas
ought to have written that, upon review, he was dismissing Peterson’s requested Orders. One of those requested Orders, upon Judicial
Review, was that the Ontario Divisional Court decree that several parts of the Code
of Conduct of Ontario Psychologists be declared to be inconsistent with or
contrary to Sect. 2. (b) [Free Speech] of Canada’s Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. That sets up Justice Schabas’
second obvious lie, which was quote: SCHABAS: 44. Dr. Peterson does not challenge the
principles in the Code. Although he takes issue … That lie is proved by Peterson’s
requested Order of his application to have quote “the Preamble, PRINCIPLE 1 and
Ethical Standards I.1, I.2, I.3, I.5 and I.9 of the Canadian CODE of Ethics for
Psychologists” declared to be, quote “inconsistent with, and contrary to, s.
2(b) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (‘Charter’) and are of no
force and effect.” Thus Peterson clearly
challenged that Code’s Principles. Given
that the Psychologists cite respect for persons as an ethical principle
Peterson correctly challenged it given that the law is no respecter of persons. Common Law is common ethics! Finally, at paragraphs 58. and 68.
Schabas proves he is arguing the case rather than providing a fair “hearing”. At paragraph 58., he writes: Dr. Peterson
submits etc. (snip) … I DISAGREE. Again
at 68. Schabas writes: “Dr. Peterson’s counsel also submitted etc. (snip) … I
DO NOT AGREE. An impartial judge would write
that s/he is persuaded by the argument of a party who disagreed with Peterson’s
submissions. Instead he proved that he
was personally disagreeing/arguing “on the record” of a biased Judicial Review. To read the full judgment is to see that
Schabas is clearly attempting a “balancing” of Peterson’s “free speech” rights
vs. “the College’s statutory objectives”.
But he stepped into the scales!
Schabas ought to have been reported to the CJC for violating Peterson’s
legal right to a fair hearing.
Should Elon
Musk be able to call someone a pedo with no consequences? Where does legitimate
criticism of Israel end and antisemitism begin? What does ‘my truth’ really
mean, and how does it fit into the collective truth? Every day,
we’re confronted with complex issues and arguments that challenge our beliefs,
in our personal lives, online and in public. I know I certainly feel the
pressure to take definitive stances on almost everything from mask mandates to
free speech laws and whether or not we have room for more immigrants. Radicalization
has spread across the face of the earth and encompasses all spheres of society.
The corrosive effect of silo thinking appears to be here to stay. Heavy words
like denial and hate are frequently used to shut down dialogue, making it
acceptable (some say responsible) for both sides to stop engaging with each
other altogether. We find
ourselves at yet another pivotal moment in history where reestablishing the
balance in our discourse should be a guiding light for thinkers, builders and
creators around the world. Our cultural leaders need to remind us that we are
all connected, part of an intricate web of over eight billion human beings. To clean up
our institutions, create a fair and just government, and ensure that social
media leaders act with integrity, we must first recognize that these are
entities composed entirely of individuals. And through their daily decisions,
these individuals shape the systems we rely on – government, academia,
business, the arts and sciences. Choices they make ripple through society like
waves on a pond. This has
been the human condition throughout history – facing choices at every fork in
the road, relying on our intuition, education, and a healthy dose of good
fortune. It can be tempting to get lost in big, complicated words like
unprecedented, historical and emergency, which can overwhelm and distort our
ability to see things in context. Often, this leads to hasty fight-or-flight
decisions that prioritize band-aid solutions over long-term balance, steering
us down dangerous, heartless and counterproductive paths. Yet we can
take solace in the fact that this struggle for balance is nothing new. Since we
climbed down from the trees, stood upright and set our sights on the horizon,
humanity has been on a relentless quest for truth. And unbelievably we’re still
here making decisions and continuing our journey in the early dawn light of the
21st century. By drawing
on the wisdom of those who came before us – family, friend, foe – we can approach
today’s challenges with greater alacrity, clarity and purpose and keep walking
the razor’s edge between freedom and responsibility. Essential
Free Speech Reading List:Tao Te Ching by Lao TzuThe BibleThe QuranOn Liberty by John Stuart MillThe Narrative of the Life of an American Slave by Frederick DouglassThe Fountainhead by Ayn Rand1984 by George OrwellThe Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah ArendtThe Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. TolkeinThe Gulag Archipelago by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
Fools
rush in where the wary dare to tread The
title implies the need to find a fair middle ground between two concepts: an
individual's right to free speech and the government's authority to suppress
it. As I will argue, both concepts are invalid, making the challenge to find a
balance between them a delightful thought-provoking venture. Rights
and authorizations are established through an agreement between a grantor and a
recipient, creating a contractual relationship. For a contract to be considered
valid, all parties must consent and fully understand its terms. However, in the
case of government and individuals, such an agreement does not exist, rendering
both concepts invalid. Hence, no one has the right to free speech, nor does the
government have the authority to regulate one’s speech. Nevertheless, balancing
these concepts, as the title suggests, assumes the validity of the government’s
authority where some people are rulers and others are subjects. Without this
distinction, individuals would be sovereign by default, wherein balance is a
given. Interestingly,
the Declaration of Independence asserts that individual sovereignty is
self-evident by stating that all men are created equal, which the authors
summarily renounced by claiming the need to establish a government of rulers
and subjects. In 1791, the US Constitution's First Amendment declares that
Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Nonetheless, just seven
years later, this was refuted by the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts,
which made it a crime for American citizens to print, utter, or publish any
false, scandalous, and malicious writings about the government. The senselessness of
government laws that regulate speech, as well as other conduct, is evident in
the limited application of such laws to citizens of the promulgating
government. International law prohibits their external application: Par in
parem imperium non habet or "An equal has no dominion over an
equal," recognizing each nation as a sovereign entity. As long as a nation observes sovereignty, it can do and say pretty much
anything it wants—a rather simple and common-sense arrangement that, while
honored, ensures a cooperative coexistence. The principle of national sovereignty applies
irrespective of a nation’s wealth, population, size, location, customs, laws,
or natural resources. Even nations of just a few thousand people are considered
sovereign. Given this principle, let’s apply the rule of inference called modus
ponens—which states, “If one thing is true, then another will be,” and see
where it leads, which you’ve likely already surmised. The two hundred or so sovereign nations in the world today are each
independent of the laws and customs adopted by any other sovereign. If each
sovereign were to split (not an uncommon event, as there were only 20 such
nations at the beginning of the 19th century and 49 by the end), we would have
about four hundred independent sovereigns. Again. all equal, thus having no
dominion over another. Given only two dozen or so additional splits, we arrive
at around eight billion sovereigns of “equals.” Accordingly, no sovereign (now
a person) is subject to the dominion of another sovereign (another person). Hence,
if a sovereign nation is independent of and equal to another, so be the individual. Today, proponents of government argue, and most people believe, that a
powerful ruling government is necessary to uphold a civil society, which, like
all myths, will eventually fade into backward thinking. Nevertheless, in the
meantime, one can live and think independently outside the mental trap of a
political government without the need for others to do the same. To free oneself from the nonsensical nature of political government
involves living and thinking as an anarchist, recognizing that life belongs to
the person living it. Believing otherwise presumes that one person's life is
the domain of another. People are not born with an empty slate but instead have an inherent
moral guide that makes them far better equipped to govern themselves than some
political overlord claiming to know otherwise. Certainly, we learn from and respect those who are wiser
and can help guide us in life, but wisdom does not reside in those who demand respect. In the political world,
those who demand respect are enforcers to be dreaded, not leaders to be
followed. Despite the government's lack of authority, thinking responsibly begins
with an understanding that one is accountable for one's conduct, including
speech, and subject to the consequences of such conduct, whether justified or
not.
True free speech doesn’t exist in the modern world. Even in democratic countries, legal restrictions on expression are commonplace. Governments, platforms, and individuals argue for these limits to maintain order, prevent harm, or curb misinformation. Yet, these restrictions undermine the core idea of free speech. If we believe certain forms of speech must be controlled or banned, then we concede that true free speech doesn’t exist. To genuinely uphold freedom of speech, it must be entirely unrestricted, without exceptions. The Contradiction of Restricted Free Speech Free speech means the right to express any idea, thought, or belief, no matter how controversial or unpopular. The moment we impose restrictions—whether to prevent hate speech, misinformation, or protect public order—we move away from free speech toward controlled expression. If we decide that some ideas are too dangerous or offensive to be expressed, we are no longer practicing true free speech. Consider laws against "hate speech." While these laws aim to protect individuals from harm or incitement to violence, they also set a dangerous precedent. Who determines what qualifies as "hate"? Where is the line between expressing a belief and inciting harm? Accepting that some speech can be banned because it is offensive opens the door to more restrictions, potentially silencing dissent, criticism of authority, or any challenge to the status quo. Are Thoughts a Threat? Deeming certain thoughts as inherently dangerous suggests that some ideas should be excluded from public discourse. This is a slippery slope. Ideas themselves are not threats; they reflect human thought and imagination. When we believe certain ideas should be illegal, we imply that specific forms of thinking must be controlled, which is contrary to a free society. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., argued for "freedom for the thought that we hate," reminding us that free speech protects even the most offensive or dangerous ideas. If we ban some speech, we make speech free only for those who conform to prevailing norms. Historically, ideas now seen as fundamental rights—like civil rights or gender equality—were once suppressed because they were considered dangerous. Had they been restricted, progress would have been stifled. Removing Restrictions: A Lesson from the Road An experiment in Ashford, England, offers an insightful parallel. Authorities removed traditional traffic controls—like signs and signals—at a busy intersection. The aim was to create uncertainty that would make drivers more attentive and cautious. The results were surprising: traffic congestion decreased, and accidents did not increase. Without signs, drivers were more aware, slowing down and interacting more carefully. Applying this idea to free speech, removing restrictions could make society more resilient and discerning. Just as drivers in Ashford became more mindful, citizens in a society with unrestricted speech would need to critically evaluate ideas rather than rely on external controls. Building Stronger Listeners Instead of Silencing Speakers Instead of silencing speakers, we should focus on strengthening listeners. Educating people to think critically and differentiate between various forms of speech will help them recognize and counter misinformation or harmful rhetoric. Noam Chomsky argued, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Free speech isn't just about protecting speakers—it’s about empowering listeners to engage with all ideas, even those they find troubling. The False Promise of Security Through Restrictions Supporters of speech restrictions argue they are necessary for safety, preventing harm, or stopping false information. But this assumes people can't discern truth from lies. Restrictions may create a false sense of security, but they also drive dangerous ideas underground, where they cannot be challenged. Allowing all speech in the open gives society a chance to debate, debunk, and diminish harmful ideas. Restricting speech to prevent falsehoods implies people cannot think critically or make informed choices. Censorship does not educate; it hides alternative viewpoints. In contrast, permitting all speech—true or false—encourages deeper engagement, helping people develop a nuanced understanding and learn to discern fact from fiction. Conclusion Free speech is not a conditional privilege; it’s a fundamental right that must be fully upheld. Any restriction is a step away from true freedom. To achieve a society where speech is genuinely free, we must accept the discomfort that comes with it. Only by allowing all ideas, no matter how controversial, can we honor the spirit of free speech and maintain an open, dynamic society. Instead of censoring speech, we should focus on becoming better listeners, equipping ourselves to handle all ideas critically and thoughtfully.
In writing this I risk hypocrisy, because I have enjoyed
countercultural fruits while now proposing a new principle that might ban them
all in the future. I’ll saw the branch I sit on. In my defense I submit myself
and my generation to William Blake when he wrote that the road of excess leads
to the palace of wisdom. The new principle is this: Injustice is that which thwarts revolutionary creativity. Revolutionary creativity is not mere cleverness, like an
observant monkey escaping its cage. It is the practice of discovery,
transmission, and application of truthful principles of man and nature, for the
loving purpose of increasing man’s capacity to survive as a species, through
scientific and artistic revolution. Anything that serves that Truth (which we
could term God or the general welfare), is just, and, anything that harms it is
unjust. Now, imagine free speech to be an inalienable right. Why, and,
from whence comes, that right? Not the State, for if the State gave, the State
can take away. From God? How do we know? We know, because the nature of man is
to be creative, and, the purpose of society is to foster that creativity, that
man may survive changing conditions which bring new threats to his survival,
through revolutionary adaptations in his thought and practice. So long as man
is made in God’s image, God must—if He is of any account—intend man to survive,
and to do so man must creatively flourish, and to creatively flourish man must
be able to think and organize society . . . through speech (whether oral,
written, musical or imagistic). Remember that, like health, or wisdom, justice is an unlimited
good, the more of which the better. Logically, then, the less injustice we
have, the better. So, speech can be just or unjust. Logically we ought to censor
unjust speech, in order to be as just as possible. The question is,
specifically, what is unjust speech? Consider the case of blasphemy, especially blasphemous images.
This cuts to the core of the Western tradition of Jesus Christ as Logos, in a
manner that goes beyond rational criticism or mere rejection, into desecration
and ugliness. For example: giving the Virgin Mary a rainbow homosexual halo,
parodying Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper using drag
queens, minors and an edible Dionysus, depicting the Crucifixion of Jesus as
pornography, and worse. Man is groomed and coarsened by such imagery. In terms of how it
affects the innocent, it is worse than pornography. Indeed, the often sexual
dimension of such blasphemy is, like porn, specifically intended
not merely to hurt religious feelings, but to sully the sacred and
corrupt the traditional morals of youth. Further examples of unjust speech would include direct death
threats (except in self-defence), invasion of privacy (child pornography,
warrantless searches), libel (except over contested facts), fraud (including
counterfeit goods and political deepfakes intended to mislead the electorate),
crying wolf (as by pulling a fire alarm without cause), and forced utterances (such
as being legally obligated to use transsexual pronouns). A case can be made for
instructions for crime, anticlassical music, adult pornography (except marital
aids), graphic violence (horror films, police snuff, ISIS propaganda videos),
treasonous leaks of classified material, and postmodern architecture. You
may disagree with some on this list, but, all? Is counterculture hopelessly censorable, then? The case can be
made that countercultural speech can be used justly as a kind of vaccine
against corruption, by carefully exposing people to it in controlled and
limited doses, similar to how the Ugly is used in Classical art.[1] This is
reminiscent of the religious or shamanic use of psychedelics rather than for
mere kicks. Note that this essay does not purport to be the last word in
censorship, but, rather, the first word in a serious attempt to organically rein
in the terrible effects of unjust speech on society. It may be that Plato’s
paternalistic republic was onto something after all. He only lacked correction
on the true nature of man and society’s purpose. We already exist in a worsening mental health crisis, an economic
crisis, a political crisis, a demographic crisis, a religious crisis and a
social crisis. Unrestricted freedom of speech becomes an exercise in sedition.
It is mere license, not liberty. Subversion is admired while beauty and
morality are marginalized and mocked. Could our decline be related to the fact
that our society tolerates huge and drenching quantities of unjust speech?
Could this be intentional, serving the oligarchic elite by snuffing the sacred
revolutionary spirit of man from childhood on? Certain kinds of minds are impossible under the pervasive
tyranny of unjust speech. I remember seeing a film showing a gruesome murder of
an innocent man when I was a child. That was the first wrong thing
I ever saw in my life. More followed. Now, we drip unjust speech, and we think
it’s normal, even indispensable to our enjoyment. But, few grasp how the
innocent mind is affected by unjust speech, and how serious adults in the
recent past were in preserving those minds. I regretfully find myself among the
corrupted, recalling shocking words and images I have encountered. We have all
become salty sailors and jaded prostitutes. Is this really the only road to
wisdom? A society internalizing and unfolding the principle that
injustice—and unjust speech—is that which thwarts revolutionary creativity,
will be fit, in principle, to retain the old Chinese “Mandate of Heaven.” One
which does not has, to that degree, bestialized itself and is not
morally fit to survive, because the laws of physics will crush any society that
cannot innovate in the face of new threats. And, the universe is full of
threats; history is littered with societies that failed to meet them. [1] The Cult of Ugliness, or Beauty as a Necessary Condition of
Mankind https://larouchepub.com/hzl/2001/feb_conf_address_010218.html
Balance
is an important facet of life. When we consider the idea of Balance,
it’s an implied juxtaposition between known binaries such as
truth\false, in\out, yes\no. In the case of Free Speech Rights, it’s
more like the 3-body problem, perhaps more complex.
If
we consider the case between yes\no, this would translate to finding
a balance between “Absolute Free Speech” and “Absolutely No
Free Speech’. Somewhere in between and not necessarily the middle,
lies an elastic tension between the two. At
the outset, there is the problem with application of laws designed
for the physical world into the virtual world. With anonymous
accounts, it becomes difficult to track down a direct threat to life
for example. It seems straight-forward to create laws that are
direct, but what constitutes a threat? Saying you wish someone harm
is not the same as stating you will harm. This becomes subject to
interpretation and thus becomes the unpredictable 3-body problem. Now
let’s consider the idea of truth\false. Also known as
Misinformation or Disinformation, interpretation is clearly a matter
of opinion. Who would be the arbiter of this conundrum? Government?
Government is not a nebulous entity of wisdom, but a conglomeration
of people bound by group-think. The larger the government, the more
pathological. We see this in Brazil banning X. NGO’s
are no better. How about centralized sources like Wikipedia or
“fact-checking” sites such as snopes.com? It has been perverted
to such a degree that I personally do not use them. There are those
who claim that ‘false’ information could lead to some form of
harm to those who accept it as ‘truth’. But this action, clearly
rests on the person making decisions. It’s similar to voting for a
particular political party and losing your 2nd Amendment
rights based on a vote of 9 jurists whose majority constitution is
left leaning. Are we now to accept this ‘opinion’ as truth and
lose our rights? There clearly is a need for a tertiary element that
would apply consistent judgment. An election is flawed in this case
especially since the majority would impose upon the minority. Thus
the US Constitution has the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments
to guarantee limits to this potential outcome. But the courts would
have to adjudicate each. It is an expensive endeavor since you would
have to prove your rights were violated. Even if you win, the cost
would be catastrophic. Imagine losing your job, house, family and
time to affirm rights you should have up front. If you win, you get
nothing. This makes the law pathological. Imagine this on Social
Media. Certainly not ideal to say the least. Now,
consider the rules set forth by the owner of the platform. Rules
would be set for consistency in interactions such as no usage of
profane language. The problem here is that “profane” is a matter
of perspective. Of course, opting out is the better option. A problem
with this model, is its usage by certain authorities not just
governmental but corporate. For example, requiring the creation of an
X account for communication purposes. I would proclaim that
government should apply limits to this since it could potentially
violate legal rights of employment statutes. As you can guess, it’s
certainly is more complex. What happens if your boss fires you
because you said something in disagreement with your boss? So much
for Free Speech. There
are those who insist that only verified ‘actual’ humans with some
form of KYC (Know Your Customer) be the owners of Social Media
accounts. I actually disagree with this entirely. In China for
example, this is compulsory. As you can tell, I’m biased from an
American point of view since I have invoked the US Constitution. The
world has different sets of rules. So regional jurisdiction would
apply. The legal complexity of various opinions masquerading as law
punishable by extreme penalties only leaves us with one option: do
not use Social Media. But we are human. We need to express ourselves
as we figure out life. Are we to be hamstring from the outset? Without
providing a “Graph” of rules and guidelines which I could provide
but not without payment, governments making rash and mostly political
decisions based on severely biased opinions, makes for a highly
volatile pressure cooker. Personally, your accounts should be
anonymous and nothing in the Social Media space should be considered
valid. Think of crazy “Bob” stating that aliens are after him.
Maybe they are, maybe they are not. But either way, the actual
Balance is in between using it and not using it with the
consideration that its value is relative. That would be the true
balance.
One’s relationship to the principle of freedom of speech is
likely informed by a variety of sources. Some of us were first drawn to the
principle by the British and French liberal intellectuals who made long-lasting impacts on the structures of Western
society. Others were introduced to this most fundamental of freedoms by the
valorous souls who bravely risked their lives on historic battlefields, or who
drafted constitutions before flickering candlelight. For many, this hallowed
principle was revealed from the depths of the vulgate; the crass and raw
belting roars of rock ‘n’ roll, with the great bards of the genre challenging
the rigid cultural norms of their time. Though these academics, warriors,
legislators, and artists may seem like unlikely allies, they would all be
troubled by the dawn of a new oppressive orthodoxy threatening our modern
cultural landscape. Of course, our motley crew of contrasting crusaders would
have seen far worse in the prime of their respective eras, as well as the eras
of those who preceded them. They knew well of Socrates’ infamous condemnation
for corrupting the youth by challenging customs and authority. A similar accusation
was levied against the heterodox psychologist Jordan Peterson in recent years—an
accusation which lesser man may never have recovered from.[1]
In 19th-century Upper Canada, the social scientist Robert Gourlay
was jailed for pamphleteering against the political power structures of his day.[2]
Two centuries later, many prominent Canadians are questioning so-called
“anti-hate” bills, such as Bills C-11 and C-63, fearing that they subdue
dialogue and restrict dissent.[3][4]
In decades past, American cultural icons such as Lenny Bruce and Jim Morrison,
were arrested and charged with obscenity for holding a mirror up to society’s
flaws.[5]
A broader fight of free speech continues in the USA today, as many students and
professors push back against new speech codes on college campuses. As Ecclesiastes
wisely wrote, ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. This ancient maxim often holds
true in the discourse around free speech, with one glaring difference between modern
discourses and those of the past. Technologies which the free speech heroes of
yesteryear could never have fathomed have made themselves ubiquitous in our
society. On the bright side, our digital Gutenberg machines have provided us
with an extraordinary wealth of information, making once suppressed manifestos,
diatribes, war cries, songs, and literature freely accessible at our fingertips.
However, these newly established
networks have also provided opportunities for encroachment by governments and
corporations, who are threatened by our newfound digital populism. The growing
pains of Gutenberg’s informational revolution were all too often felt on the
rack, and if we are not careful, an analogous fate might freedom lovers of the
digital age face. The internet was once hailed as an informational Wild West.
Even in the halls of power, legislative acts such as Section 230 in the USA,
and the Electronic Commerce Directive in the EU, were written and updated to protect
the fledgling medium from burdensome restrictions. Today these acts, and the
protections they upheld, are being reconsidered by a new generation of
bureaucrats and politicians.[6]
[7]This
nefarious nannying in our legislatures is but one theatre in a greater war on free
expression being fought across the Western world. The age-old tendencies of the
censorial past appear to have resurfaced in the digital age and have manifested
in ways both tragic and outright bizarre. A truly awful example of this can be found in a recent series
of German legal cases. The cases began after a horrific sexual assault, wherein
a 15-year-old German girl was savagely assaulted by nine young men. Outraged by
the assault, a 20-year-old German woman took to WhatsApp to vent her
justifiable frustration. She railed against one of the assailants, an Iranian
national who was 19 at the time of the attack, calling him a “disgusting freak”
and a “disgraceful rapist pig”. For this
passionate outburst, she was sentenced to a weekend in jail for defamation. This
was a harsher sentence than those received by eight of the nine rapists, only
one of whom received any jail time at all. [8]
[9]
This case clearly demonstrates the
dangers of an institutionalized censorship regime adapting itself to the
digital age, and it also hints at the ideological underpinnings of those who
have eagerly embraced this censorial authority in recent years. From the baffling decisions of the German court system to
the North American elites, who openly endorsed Black Lives Matters demonstrations
while restricting anti-lockdown protests, the new regime of Western censorship often
seems to side with left-wing sensibilities.[10]
Though, throughout history, the political left is far from the only faction to suppress
speech and to silence opposition. Today’s conservatives, and classical
liberals, ought to keep this in mind should the cultural landscape shift back
in their favour. The unique challenges of the digital age present a new
frontier in this age-old fight for freedom of speech and expression. Though the
fight has found a new theatre, it is nevertheless a continuation of the battles
fought by our honoured forebearers. It is therefore fitting to draw upon their
wisdom in this time of uncertainty. In the spirit of the great philosophers, we
might take up the classic Voltairean mantel of defending one’s right to speech even
if we disagree with the content. From the revolutionary warriors, we must learn
that standing up for one’s convictions requires a willingness to suffer and
sacrifice. From the great legislators of liberty, we might study to the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, perhaps the most effective protection of
free speech ever enshrined in law. Finally, in the spirit of the great artists
and rockstars, we ought to learn the importance of using our gift of freedom to
create something worthwhile. [1] Currie,
Aidan. “Hundreds Sign Open Letter to U of T Admin Calling for Jordan Peterson’s
Termination.” The Varsity, 30 Nov. 2017,
thevarsity.ca/2017/11/29/hundreds-sign-open-letter-to-u-of-t-admin-calling-for-jordan-petersons-termination/.
[2] Wise,
S.F. “Gourlay, Robert Fleming.” Dictionary of Canadian Biography,
www.biographi.ca/en/bio/gourlay_robert_fleming_9E.html. Accessed 18 Sept. 2024.
[3] Seles,
Nicholas. “Why Youtubers like Me Oppose Bill C-11 - Macleans.Ca.” Macleans,
macleans.ca/politics/why-youtubers-like-me-oppose-bill-c-11. Accessed 18 Sept.
2024. [4] Van
Geyn, Christine. “Under Bill C-63, an Online Comment Could Cost You Thousands |
National Post.” National Post, 8 Mar. 2024,
nationalpost.com/opinion/christine-van-geyn-under-bill-c-63-an-online-comment-could-cost-you-thousands.
[5] Davis,
Stephen. Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend. Gotham Books, 2014. pp.
24-25. [6] Bartholomew,
Jem. “Q&A: The EU’s Digital Services Act Rewrites the Internet’s Rulebook.”
Columbia Journalism Review, 6 Sept. 2023,
www.cjr.org/tow_center/qa-the-eus-digital-services-act-rewrites-the-internets-rulebook.php.
[7] Zach
Lilly, opinion contributor. “The Internet’s Death Warrant: Congress Looks to
Sunset Section 230.” The Hill, The Hill, 23 May 2024,
thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4680582-the-internets-death-warrant-congress-looks-to-sunset-section-230/.
[8] DH
Web Desk. “German Court Gives Woman Harsher Punishment than Convicted Rapist
for Calling Him ‘Disgraceful Pig.’” Deccan Herald, 30 June 2024,
www.deccanherald.com/world/german-court-gives-woman-harsher-punishment-than-convicted-rapist-for-calling-him-disgraceful-pig-3086695.
[9] Jackson,
James. “German Woman given Harsher Sentence than Rapist for Calling Him ‘Pig.’”
Yahoo! News, Yahoo!, 28 June 2024,
www.yahoo.com/news/german-woman-given-harsher-sentence-155055252.html. [10] Diamond,
Dan. “Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More than
Social Distance - Politico.” Politico, 4 June 2020,
www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534.
Free speech present anywhere at any time in the past 5,000+ years
of history is a miracle. The idea of free speech directly challenges every
system, structure, and institution. In most places that claim to value free speech,
speech that does not matter and does not threaten the institution is welcome
and allowed. Unwelcome speech gets swiftly punished for challenging the system.
In contrast, free speech that matters is usually unpopular and challenging. The premise of balancing free speech rights in today’s world is
equally miraculous. Without people speaking from the opposite perspective
(whether right or wrong), those in positions of power are free to do whatever
they wish with minimal, if any, friction. Obviously, this is the way they
prefer it. True free speech means allowing those you disagree with to have a
voice, a platform, and to let them challenge you. True free speech means
allowing people to share things you believe to be untrue, things you believe
are dangerous, and things you preferred left unsaid. This is something that fewer
and fewer people have the backbone to support. I suspect that part of the
reason for this is a lack of intellectual maturity on those who are coming of
age, mixed with a lack of genuine curiosity about what others believe and the
humility to acknowledge that we may be wrong. Finding “balance” on a topic with this much stacked against it is as
easy as taking a caravan of camels through the eye of a needle—not through a
gate believed to be that name, but through the literal eye of the needle on the
sewing machine found in your mother’s closet. However, let’s imagine for a moment that the absurdly impossible
were in fact possible. What might be some steps we would need to take? The first step in our solution focuses on the individual. For individuals,
we must realize that information is not our enemy—even misinformation. What we choose
to do with that information is where problems arise. For example, if you believe that the next leader of your country
will be a dictator, regardless of whether this is true, what you choose to do with
the information is key. Choosing to debate the idea, seeking to understand
different perspectives, and embracing humility all develop your character. When
doing this, you may discover you are correct, but you may also discover that
what your gut reaction felt like doing would have been wrong. The best solutions require taking new information to the
debate stage, not to hands of those eager to protest. Information, even
misinformation, is not your enemy. Instead, information is the key to knowledge—and
the willingness to learn from differing perspectives is a sign of maturity. Since platforms and governments contain individuals, solutions
at these two levels must include the maturity required at the individual level.
By requiring this detail, we shrink the eye of our needle even smaller. Governments fear free speech because free speech challenges their
preferred message. The common belief is that information (speech) that matters must
be restricted, filtered, and vetted before being approved (allowed). But governments that restrict speech restrict progress. If given
enough time in a closed information environment, even the best economy will stagnate.
Accurate information is critical for governments and the best information comes
from the progress found through the freedom to exchange even unpopular ideas. We’ve built our solution on a framework of freely spread
information. But this freedom has costs—and these costs are heavy. The world we
are being thrust into is quickly losing something many people have held dear: anonymity.
Within the next decade, if it hasn’t happened already, everyone will lose the
ability to remain anonymous—both offline and online. But grasping for anonymity while it slips through our fingers,
we miss seeing that anonymity might be a greater obstacle than benefit. For
every one whistleblower that would benefit from staying anonymous, hundreds of
immature, unstable, deranged trolls thrive and multiply. By giving up on most cases of protecting anonymity, and with freedom
to share ideas, we create level arena for ideas to thrive and clash. Nothing will stop
the government from tracking anyone and everyone (they do this now). The
government will also continue creating webs and lists of people of interest. The
illusion of censorship assumes that restricting the reach of information is for
the greater good. It’s possible that the better path is keeping all information
in the open and then tracking how it spreads. For platforms that want to exist in this framework, there
are two options. Those that want to curate and restrict what gets shared on
their platform are free to do so. By proceeding down this path, we would define
these platforms as media entities, and they would be held accountable for what they allow published. Instead, platforms that desire to be places for free speech
to thrive could receive Section 230 style rights. While these platforms could
have topical restrictions or various separated discussion locations, they would
not be allowed to remove content unless it involves illegal activities or
copyright infringement. Instead, they would be required to allow people to
block others, mark information as needing more context, and submit alternative
perspectives, similar to X’s community notes. While some could misuse these
systems, their misuse would be clearly visible. This solution is like taking a caravan of camels through the
eye of a needle—impossible. However, Jesus follows up His famous metaphor with
the statement, “With people this is impossible, but with God
all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26) While I could expound my thoughts even more, this is one guy’s attempt
to start a discussion, and perhaps learn some countering ideas along the way.
In my view,
speech should be anything but free. Bad speech, false speech, belligerent
speech along with felicitous speech, informative speech, and inspiring speech should
all carry a price, sometimes paying out and sometimes cashing in, with a full
range of well-modulated possibilities in between. Viewing speech as some privileged
human activity that we must cordon off and protect from reprisals is one factor
contributing to its corruption. Speech is one of many ways a person transacts with
other people. People learn to use their power of speech best when those
transactions are allowed their natural consequences. Speech is consequential like
J. L. Austin taught in his seminal, How to Do Things with Words. Doing crime
with speech, things like theft, murder and injury should be punished with law.
But everything else, including creating hate, should be regulated with societal norms,
dirty looks, lost employment, and exclusion from certain fellowships. Like most things, the
quality of speech generally improves when governmental involvement is minimized
and people, through the pursuit of self-interest are allowed to discover that
truth tellers and honest brokers are of greater value than charlatans and grand
standers. The market has a way of rewarding those with well-conceived
self-interests while extinguishing those without. But what is this market and
what are its rules? The goal of every
society is to effectively project itself into the future. Just like life wills
its own survival and uses sexual reproduction as the means to project into the
future, so does society will its own continuity and projects itself into the future
through raising members that will maintain that society into the future. Sexual
reproduction faithfully replicates organisms with the added benefit of allowing
for variations on a theme. The exploratory evolutionary nature of this
biological process is enhanced many times when it leaves the tightly regulated
realm of nature where the basic elements of success revolve around food, sex,
territory, and predation, and move to the relatively formless realm of ideas
where most anything is possible. But not everything. Genes as units of
biological information have very few successful radiations that improve on what
is. Memes as units of cultural information have many more possibilities that
might work but here too, not everything we wish to be true culturally, actually
works to move a society effectively into the future. Broadly speaking, cultural strategies break
into two camps: liberals who wish to challenge accepted constraints and
conservatives who wish to preserve them. In the realm of sexuality, liberal
forces explore new ways of mating which almost by definition cannot improve on
nature’s tried and true method of mating males with females to produce
offspring. However, the production of cultural offspring requires less genetic
continuity and more memetic continuity, and so different strategies of cradle
robbing ensue. Brood parasites like the common cuckoo move their eggs to an
unsuspecting nest. They forage and fornicate freely while others invest in
child rearing for them. In the realm of human society biology plays less of a
role than cultural mimesis. Here, taking advantage of the long-term,
painstaking investments made by biological parents and then
converting those offspring to a different cultural project can be an extremely
successful strategy. Cultural projection is gained without the high price and narrow
margins of biological investments. Speech is the
essential human realm where memes supplant genes in importance. I am much more
defined by my beliefs and mores, my habits and values than by my genetic
makeup. Therefore, as a parent, I project my children into the future provided they carrying my
cherished beliefs, my language. This involves me in their education. Social
media, public education, institutions of higher education and even Artificial
Intelligence all compete with me to educate my children. ChatGPT communicates
implicit suppositions and value judgements in ways that elude detection and
complicate my ability to challenge them. The odds against my success in
conveying my ideas of the world when they contravene the basic assumptions that
pervade our thin cultural homogeneity are overwhelming. Such is my challenge
with free speech today. Our supposedly open society is both more intrusive and
monolithic. The barriers parents would erect against bad but attractive ideas
are less successful. Moreso, short term results like popularity and sexual
attention are more immediately available than the slow, long-term
results gained from teaching my children competencies and the virtues which
make for a happy adult family. We don’t gain from,
nor can we effectively control the spread of bad ideas. Especially since my bad
ideas may well be your good ideas. All we can do is allow this high stakes, and
heavily fraught cultural experimentation to play out to what we hope is best
results. It behooves wise parents to be on the right side of these
experimentations so that successful children are projected into the future.
Many institutions and associations which we once relied upon to help raise our
children have adopted the most extreme forms of the liberal approach which has
morphed into the call for autonomy at all costs. The responsibilities of
child-rearing are jettisoned along with the virtues that being a parent
requires. Here free speech is wrongly conceived as the ability to say whatever
I feel without living with the consequences. The advantage of reaching these
extremes is that the implausibility of their success is laid bare and their
eventual failure ensured. The goal is to be far away when the house collapses
or more optimistically to be ready to return when these institutions learn to
right themselves. In the meantime, we build better alternatives, where truth telling,
intelligent speech, trust, shared values, and time-tested ideas prove their
worth by the healthy, productive, attractive, and capable adults that emerge
from them. So long as people are free to parent as they see fit, then the
adherents of true speech, virtuous speech and prudent speech will triumph over
their impostors who will, along with their false and vicious institutions
extinguish themselves without any help from me.
Never surrender liberty for freedom. For the sake of this essay, I define liberty as the state of having meaningful options available, whereas I define freedom as the capacity to choose between those options without restraint (neither external nor internal). In this regard, an action may be in line with freedom but against liberty: If you are an anchored boat in a ravaging storm, you have the choice before you to either remain anchored or to raise the anchor. If you choose to remain anchored, you may feel less free (withholding yourself from an available option), but once you have raised the anchor, you are blown about by the whims of the wind, and have lost your ability to choose (having lost the option to remain moored): your unwise use of freedom has cost you your liberty. In politics, we see similar moments where surrendering a potential freedom grants us an increase of liberty. Maximizing liberty doesn’t imply unrestricted freedom. A country’s people are more free if their borders (both physical & digital) are secure against invasion, so forfeiting service or money to fund the military surrenders a potential freedom for a greater liberty. It is even possible to restrict freedom while increasing liberty, e.g.: if a nation is under attack, people unwilling to defend their borders (draft dodging) may have their freedoms removed (imprisonment), yet this results in a net increase of liberty (as cf. the country losing its sovereignty). Liberty can bind us—make demands of us for its survival. Morality versus Legality Before discussing the legal aspects of this prompt, I want to clarify the difference between morality and legality: just because something is wrong does not mean it should be illegal. The role of government is not to prevent wrongdoing per se, but rather to punish wrongdoing (with that as the only deterrent). My calls for action in this essay do not necessarily imply a call for legislation to enforce actions nor punish lack thereof. All issues are better dealt with preemptively through improving society (beginning with yourself) rather than reactively through the government (which should only be used as a last resort, and only then for the most egregious offenses). With these priors established, what are the rights and responsibilities of individuals: those who use platforms, those who run platforms, and those in governmental roles? Individuals: Rights & Responsibilities Individuals have a right to protect their life, a right to free exercise of conscience (liberty), and the right & control of property. These God-given rights must be honored in each individual, so long as those rights do not infringe on others’ rights and liberties. Within the right to liberty is the freedom of belief and of speech: We have a right to believe what we will and to share those beliefs with others. This right to speech must invariably include “hate speech” and benign falsehoods, otherwise there is little to be gained by enumerating the right. Rights only matter if someone is trying to take them away; people are only likely to take away your right to speech if they don’t like what you’re saying. With these rights come responsibilities for individuals exercising their right to free speech: they must be honest and forthright (not trying to deceive, even with technical truths) and do their best to investigate the validity of their speech (self-factcheck). They must avoid doing harm: they shall not knowingly produce libel nor slander, and they shall not show pornography to—nor of—children. God will hold these individuals accountable for inter-personal injury (as should the law). Platforms: Rights & Responsibilities Individuals who run platforms have the right to property: to moderate as they see fit. They have ultimate authority to ban posts or users—to ban topics or any particular kind of content. If they want their platform exclusive for pineapples, they have every right to ban pine trees. With this right to ban comes a responsibility of transparency: public policy must justify every case of banning; every ban should come with a detailed explanation providing specific evidence of how a post violates the policy. Furthermore, platforms should promote fact checks. Humans are all flawed; what was once considered fact may one day be considered fiction (and vice versa), so fact-checks should not be absolute. Musk’s X excels in its community notes: open-source, publicly vetted, but not restrictive: it gives readers additional context (which may or may not alter someone’s perception of a post). The best disinfectant for falsehoods is truth; by attaching potential truth to potential falsehood, it gives viewers the opportunity to update their priors on the poster and on the information. Governments: Rights & Responsibilities God holds lawmakers and enforcers of the law accountable for securing to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the rights & control of property, and the protection of life. Individuals in a position to make laws or enforce laws have the right to investigate and prosecute potential harm and to punish wrongdoing. If a post incites imminent lawless action, its poster should face criminal charges. If a platform willingly shows pornography to—or of—children, its owner should face criminal charges. With this right of prosecution comes several responsibilities. Due to their responsibility to protect freedom of consciousness, they cannot make laws with respect to persons: they cannot bar particular types of speech or censor sole sides of an issue. It is their responsibility to avoid forcing narrative at all cost: it is not the government’s responsibility to prove fact nor penalize benign falsehoods. They must be transparent in their interactions with individuals who post on (or own) platforms, including clear guidelines on permissible vs punishable behaviors. Conclusions We must be willing to surrender freedom to maximize liberty. We must pursue personal change in order to promote social change; only through individual responsibility can our society heal and progress. If we let ourselves slip, so will society fall alongside us.
Do you remember a time when what was said online was not considered real life? Do you remember a time when the laws of the jungle applied and anything could be said? Do you remember when Facebook’s base was young people – and that it was next-to-impossible to get parents to sign up? Do you remember the day the algorithms changed, and the sorting by most recent was removed? Do you remember investing time and money on platforms only to have your reach gutted overnight? Have you noticed you’re being inundated with ads although you’ll never buy anything? Why are these platforms taking advertiser money and targeting non-buyers? Do you remember changing platforms to escape the dodginess of the people running the show, only to have the next one bought by the people you were fleeing? Has this happened to you more than once? Have your family and friends left said platform? They probably haven’t... Have conservatives voices been shadow-banned, repeatedly? Why haven’t they left for good then? Have you paid your taxes on freelance websites like Fiverr as well as in real life? Has Tinder taken your money, and delivered you nothing? Do you remember Youtube hiding the like/dislike ratio on videos? Or your comments mysteriously disappearing? Do you remember when bots became a thing to fake popularity and intimidate critics? Do you remember Tim Pool, with insider knowledge of Minds, saying all platforms need bots to gain traction? Or Elon buying Twitter and, for a moment in time, free speech being a thing again. Tell. Me. Have. You. Been. Silenced. On. X. For. Sounding. Too. Much. Like. A. Bot. ?. Do you remember when people started getting banned in video games, for things that they’d said? Do you recall a newly reinstated Jordan Peterson, calling for anonymous accounts to have their voices removed from the conversation with certified people? Do you remember Trump telling NATO to do one thing, then Emmanuel Macron telling the French, in French, they wouldn’t do what Trump had said, they’d do [what Trump had said] instead? Do you remember a bot-propped, subtitled post on this topic making it to the very top of Reddit? Do you remember the top comment? It read “I wish we had a president who said these things.” No kidding, unless you’re Maxwell and her ilk. Do you recall the rise of AI content? How suddenly nothing is real on the net again? We’ve come full circle: we live in the beginnings of a time when anything online can be faked, so everything must be treated as if it’s not real – unless you’re the government, of course, in which case you send people to prison. Tell me, have you ever had all your social media accounts irrevocably terminated, and had to pay more in fines than the GDP of France? So why don’t people leave these cold platforms? Wherever you go, advertisers and their interests will follow; and people have their friends and family there. They’ve also invested their time, and their businesses need the reach. And don’t forget the base! Gotta get dem likes somehow! It’s as if… it’s as if people have skin in the game. And if so, is a Digital Platform not, more accurately, a Digital Country? If it is, it follows that we all have multiple citizenships – and some to digital oligarchies. According to presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy “Sixty percent of Gen Z say they’d rather lose their right to vote than give up TikTok”. There is something there, isn’t there? So, as Digital Platforms are, in fact, Digital Countries, contributions from them constitute Foreign Interference... How about this then? Many say Donald Trump must be stopped at all costs to protect “Our Democracy”. As it happens, none of the digital countries these people are on are democratically run platforms. You can say what you will about Elon Musk, he’s at least run a few polls to decide the general direction X is heading. I propose the following: anonymous free speech on the internet, except in digital countries. If people sign up for citizenship of a digital country, they have representative voices sent to the board meetings of the companies that are currently pimping access to them to advertisers and other third parties. If one is then a citizen of a digital country, one loses the right to the traditional vote. Tough individual choices must be made! World leaders must get together and pressure social media oligarchs to democratise, then set up a deadline, then sanctions, then… war – if it comes to that. What constitutes a digital country should be decided by the traditional voter; although if you’re flying a certain hate-speech-believing, woke flag, you’re a surefire candidate for an official change-of-allegiance in my book. As to all the other areas of the internet: the international waters. Government should not be involved in restricting what platforms do there, not even as a means to help parents have their children restricted from certain unsafe and unsavoury areas. What government must do, by electoral mandate, is restrict the age at which one has access to a mobile phone, apple watch, internet device. In essence, to protect the right of free expression, recognition must be given to the digital countries that exist already; and then can start the civil movement of our time: bringing back the people’s vote! As to free speech, the areas of the internet that aren’t deemed countries are international waters, jungles. The wild is the only government in the jungle and platforms can decide for themselves – just don’t say you haven’t been warned about what's out there.
In the cacophony of the digital age, where every tweet, post, and comment can echo across continents, the right to free speech is both celebrated and scrutinized. The digital forum—a global stage for discourse—presents a unique conundrum: how to preserve the vibrancy of diverse expression while shielding society from the discord of misinformation and hate speech. This essay delves into the intricate task of harmonizing free speech with responsible stewardship, ensuring that the chorus of democracy does not descend into chaos. The legal precedent set by Brandenburg v. Ohio remains a touchstone for understanding the limits of free speech, particularly the incitement to imminent lawless action. Yet, the digital landscape complicates this precedent. The case of Alex Jones, for example, demonstrates the tangible consequences of unchecked speech, with his conspiracy theories culminating in real-world violence. This instance underscores the need for platforms to act, but also highlights the risks of unchecked corporate power in silencing speech. The role of social media giants as de facto gatekeepers of public discourse raises questions about transparency and due process. The algorithms that govern our newsfeeds operate in shadows, often reinforcing existing biases. Facebook's Oversight Board, while a pioneering concept, has faced criticism for its limited scope and advisory nature. It begs the question: Can such a body effectively oversee a corporation whose user base dwarfs the population of most countries? Governments, tasked with the safety and well-being of their citizens, are inclined to regulate speech in the name of public order. The European Union's GDPR provides a framework for privacy, yet no such comprehensive standard exists for speech regulation. This absence is felt in the inconsistent and sometimes draconian measures imposed by state actors, as seen in the varied global responses to the pandemic-related misinformation. The "who" and "how" of speech regulation are pivotal. While a multi-stakeholder approach is ideal, implementing it poses challenges. Jurisdictions vary, and international consensus is often elusive. Moreover, the efficacy of media literacy programs, such as those by the News Literacy Project, depends on broad access and adoption. These programs are vital but must be part of a larger strategy that includes digital education in early schooling to build a foundation of critical thinking skills. The question of humor and satire in free speech, exemplified by the situation surrounding French comedian Dieudonné, reveals the delicate balance between protecting sensibilities and stifling creative expression. Legal restrictions in this arena must be navigated with care, ensuring they do not become tools for political suppression or cultural homogenization. A balanced solution must consider the potential for overreach. Oversight mechanisms, whether judicial or communal, need teeth to be effective. Transparency is essential, but so is enforceability. An international charter on digital speech, akin to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, could provide a foundational reference for platforms and governments alike, setting out clear principles for the regulation of speech in the digital sphere. In conclusion, the quest for balance in free speech is ongoing and complex. It requires vigilance against both the anarchy of unfettered expression and the silence of oppressive control. We must forge a path that honors the individual voice while protecting the collective harmony. By championing transparency, fostering critical thinking from a young age, and developing robust oversight mechanisms, we can cultivate a digital forum that reflects our highest democratic ideals. The task is monumental, but the stakes—the very soul of our global discourse—are too high to ignore.
In today's digital world, it feels like free speech is under attack from all sides. Individuals are scared to voice their opinions for fear of offending someone, platforms are quick to censor content, and governments are stepping in with laws or tactics that threaten our fundamental rights. I've seen this firsthand—I've had posts removed, accounts shadowbanned, and friends who are too nervous to speak their minds. It's as if we're walking on eggshells, afraid that any misstep could lead to backlash or censorship. But here's the thing: free speech isn't just about saying what everyone agrees with. It's about the freedom to challenge ideas, to question authority, and to engage in open dialogue—even if it makes people uncomfortable. When did we become so fragile that words are treated like weapons? And how do we find a balance that protects free expression without allowing misinformation to run rampant or governments to overstep their bounds?The Hypocrisy of Tech Giants It's almost laughable when CEOs of big tech companies claim to champion free expression while their platforms actively suppress it. Take Meta, for example. They publicly deny censoring content, but behind closed doors, they've admitted to taking down posts—even at the government's request. This is beyond hypocritical- it's a direct threat to our constitutional rights. Private companies have the freedom to set their own rules, sure, but when they start acting on behalf of the government to silence voices, we've got a serious problem. I've had posts about health and wellness mysteriously disappear or reach no one, while innocuous content gets all the visibility. It's frustrating and infuriating to feel like someone's putting a hand over your mouth, deciding what you can and cannot say. And it's not just me—many people are leaving these platforms in search of spaces where free speech truly exists, like thinkspot.Censorship Undermines Critical Thinking An alarming trend I've noticed is this idea that people need to be "protected" from certain information, as if we're incapable of thinking for ourselves. Governments and platforms talk about combating misinformation, but often it seems more like an excuse to control narratives and maintain power structures. If something is false, let it be discussed and debunked openly. Shielding people from information doesn't make them smarter or safer; it makes them more dependent on authorities to tell them what's true. When we censor, we undermine the very foundation of critical thinking. We're sending the message that people can't handle the truth, or worse, that they can't be trusted to discern it. This is not only patronizing but also dangerous. A society that isn't allowed to question or challenge is one that's easy to control.Societal Sensitivity and Mental Resilience It's hard not to notice how easily offended people are these days. Whether it's on college campuses or online, it seems like any differing opinion is met with outrage. This hypersensitivity reflects a deeper issue—a lack of mental resilience. When did we become so fragile that mere words can cause such distress? Being offended is a choice, and constantly choosing to be offended is unhealthy. Building mental resilience means being able to engage with ideas that challenge us without feeling personally attacked. It means recognizing that diversity of thought is a strength, not a threat. If we continue down this path of over-sensitivity, we risk creating a society where open dialogue is impossible, and that's a scary thought.The Role of Governments and Legal Systems Laws that enforce censorship or compel speech infringe on individual freedoms. It's one thing to encourage respectful language; it's another to make it a legal requirement. When authorities dictate what we must say or can't say, we're veering dangerously close to authoritarianism. History shows us the dangers of this approach. Comedians like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin faced legal action for their performances, which today are considered groundbreaking and essential to free expression. Satire and humor are vital tools for critiquing society and should be protected, not punished.Platforms as Modern Gatekeepers Social media companies have become the new gatekeepers of information. They control what we see, share, and discuss. While they have a responsibility to prevent harm, their lack of transparency and inconsistent policies raise concerns. The use of artificial intelligence algorithms in content moderation adds another layer of complexity, often leading to biased or unjust decisions without human oversight. We need platforms to be transparent about their moderation practices and to ensure they're not stifling legitimate discourse. Accountability is key. If users don't trust that they can express themselves freely, the very purpose of these platforms is undermined.Finding a Balanced Solution So, how do we balance free speech with the need to prevent harm? It starts with fostering critical thinking and media literacy. Educate individuals to discern credible information and engage with differing viewpoints thoughtfully. Censorship isn't the answer; open dialogue and true education are. Platforms must adopt clear, fair moderation policies and be transparent about their enforcement. Governments should protect constitutional rights and avoid overreach. Implementing checks and balances can prevent misuse of power by any single entity. To safeguard our freedoms, we need to promote decentralization and support technologies that reduce control by a few powerful entities. Encouraging competition among platforms can prevent monopolies that have too much influence over public discourse. It's also crucial for civil society organizations to hold governments and corporations accountable.Embracing Free Expression At the end of the day, free speech is foundational to a healthy society. It's messy, it's sometimes uncomfortable, but it's necessary. We shouldn't cater society to the most easily offended or allow governments and corporations to decide what we can say. Instead, let's encourage mental resilience, promote open dialogue, and protect the rights that allow us to challenge, question, and grow. Only then can we foster an informed and secure society that truly values freedom of expression.