On free speech

Gwern Gwynfil

There’s a lot of debate around free speech right now. This is a little strange as it’s a given as a fundamental right in a free and democratic state like ours.

The general buzz seems rooted in misunderstanding and confusion about what free speech is, how it works as a pillar of freedom in a democracy, and individual obligations.

This is a beginner’s guide to free speech, its origins, its definition, and some ideas on ways to test whether its rules are being observed.

As an added bonus there’s a section on what is not free speech, what can be seen as controlled or restricted speech.

With so much misunderstanding, incomprehension and wild throwing around of the term ‘free speech’ to justify a wide array of arguments and positions, many of which have no connection at all to the concept, please consider this a resource that anyone can use to respond to any of these mistakes or misunderstandings that they may come across, in real life or the various media platforms.

Permission granted to use this essay, in whole or in part, to set the record straight – no credit required!

Free Speech, A Brief History

 The origin of free speech as we understand it today lies in the Enlightenment thinking of the 18th century, but it has a longer pedigree.

Some trace the idea of free speech all the way back to Athenian democracy in the 5th century BC, where the idea that everyone had the right to address, criticise, and speak freely to their peers and contemporaries was a given.

But it was Enlightenment era philosophy that took the idea, refined and honed it, and gave us the concept as we understand it today.

It is one of the founding pillars of classical liberalism and has become a core principle of modern democracies across the world today.

Remember that, before the ‘free speech revolution’ in the 18th century, most countries had laws designed to suppress and punish dissenting voices. Crimes such as heresy, sedition and treason were all used to control speech and suppress ideas.

It is only in the late 18th century and into the 19th century that we start to see laws protecting the freedom of the press and suppressing censorship.

In modern democratic nations, free speech has come to be understood as a fundamental right for all.

A Short Definition and Explanation of the Fundamentals of Free Speech

 Free speech allows us to express opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation, suppression, censorship or legal sanction.

This is not without limit – we can’t slander or libel others, speech that can lead to direct harm through the threat of violence and extreme obscenity can still be illegal, but broadly speaking we can say what we like, when we like, and where we like, provided our right to free expression does not materially impinge on another person’s rights in some way.

It is very important to understand that just because we have a right to say what we want, others do not have any obligation to pay attention to what we have to say.

Ignoring someone, or not wanting to listen to them is not a suppression of free speech in any way, shape or form.

It is also important to understand that extreme verbal attacks on individuals, or groups of individuals, can be considered a form of violence – as such they are not protected under the principle of free speech because they undermine the rights and freedoms of others.

When rights collide, our right to live our lives in peace and safety trumps our right to say whatever we want to whoever we want.

Finally, the essence of free speech is about ideas and opinions – insults, hatred, and attacks designed or intended to cause harm are not free speech because they curtail the freedom of others.

The Free Speech Tests

 This list of questions is not exhaustive, but it should provide a basic set of tools to understand whether the right to free speech is being undermined or if someone is hiding behind the idea of free speech to justify language or behaviour which is in fact harmful to others.

• Is there an attempt to suppress or restrict the ability to speak freely? Not to be confused with ‘cancel culture’, which is simply exercising the right not to listen to what someone has to say. An example would be a government banning a particular philosophy or school of thought because it did not approve of the ideas being shared e.g. the lese-majeste laws in Thailand, where people can face prison for up to 15 years for being critical of the King, are a clear example of a suppression of free speech by the state
• Does it fall outside the bounds of free speech?e. is there a direct threat of violence? Is there child exploitation or extreme obscenity? Is it defamatory? Is it an incitement to cause harm? All of these are beyond the pale and can’t be justified under the umbrella of free speech
• Are there other ways in which the speaker can express themselves? If they can find another platform for their voice then being denied one because someone has no interest is in no way a violation of the principle of free speech – if we do not wish to listen, we simply don’t have to.
• Is someone being compelled to say something against their will? This is a total violation of the concept of free speech to the same extent as being restricted by law or threat from speaking your mind.
• Finally, if a group or individual is protesting that their right to free speech is being violated, are they doing so because they dislike criticism, or are they doing so because they face the threat of prosecution? The former has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech, the latter may be a free speech issue (but subject to the tests above)

Apply the tests rigorously, don’t let anyone mislead you or others as to what is and isn’t a free speech issue.

Controlled Speech

 The beauty of a free speech society is that we can say whatever we like, share ideas freely, debate openly and widely, disagree vigorously, and have a lively, vibrant public forum. Unfortunately, this means that those who wish to disguise ideas that undermine free speech can do so under the very same umbrella.

In its simplest form this argument is used to create justifications for proposals and ideas designed to restrict our freedom to speak, debate, and share certain ideas. In short, unless we stick to certain ‘controlled’ and approved messages, beliefs and political positions, we are suppressed and restricted through threats, intimidation, and, ultimately, legal changes that strip away aspects of the right to free speech.

‘You can say what you like, as long as you say what we want you to say’, or, ‘we get freedom of speech and can say whatever we like, but you can’t say that because we disagree with it’.

For my own part I would and will defend everyone’s right to speak freely, but I will also assert my right to argue vociferously against ideas I find toxic, to point out lies and misinformation, to accuse those responsible of deceit and dishonesty.

I will also exercise my right to ignore those who I believe are merely ‘empty bags of piss and wind’ with nothing of value to say or contribute – this aspect of free speech is often overlooked but it is incredibly important and valuable.

I will always agree that people have the right to share ideas and opinions, but I will exercise my right to tear those apart when they are destructive, hateful, inaccurate, ill judged, poorly thought out, or simply toxic and vile.

This is how free speech works.

This is why it is, and should always be, a fundamental right.

This is why we should all understand all of our rights.