To preface this list of misconceptions about free speech, let me categorize the notion of "free speech" into two categories:
There's the legal aspect of free speech, which deals with what the government can and cannot do to a citizen due to that person's speech. In general, this means that the government can not punish someone for expressing their opinion, with a quite narrow set of exceptions (defamation, demonstrable incitement to physical violence or crime, etc.)
Then there's the philosophical sociopolitical aspect of free speech. With this I refer to the principle of right to free speech, the respect that we ought to have to this fundamental and inalienable right. This doesn't mean we have to listen to every opinion, or agree with every opinion, or avoid presenting our criticism of that opinion (in fact, very much the contrary). However, this does mean that we respect people's right to free speech in that we don't actively try to stop people from expressing their opinions that we don't like, anywhere and everywhere, try to actively censor them and stop other people from hearing those opinions. This is the principle that Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Currently the right to free speech is under heavy attack in the western world, even though the western world should be the bastion of free speech, with zealots trying to suppress it and create a totalitarian system where only one political view and one set of opinions is allowed. Yet, even many people who oppose these zealots sometimes have themselves misconceptions about free speech.
Such as the following:
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences."
Actually, that's exactly what it means. In both meanings of the term, ie. legally and socially.
The right to free speech means precisely that you can express your opinion without legal or social repercussions. From the legal perspective it means precisely that there are no legal consequences. From the more sociopolitical aspect, if you are a supporter of freedom of speech, that means you should support people's rights to express their opinion without the fear of severe and permanent social backlash, shunning, ostracizing, harassment, bullying and violence, even if you heavily disagree with that opinion. People may freely dismiss that person's opinions and start ignoring it, and even ignore everything else that person has said and will say, but that's about it. As long as that person isn't actually hurting anybody, he can have his opinions, and you are free to ignore it, or present criticism of it (preferably in a calm, rational manner).
(And no, presenting criticism and counter-arguments is not a "consequence", although some people spouting that sentiment might be referring to that. Criticism and counter-arguments are not only valid and acceptable, in fact being able to present them is in itself part of the fundamental right to free speech.)
Some things (such as demonstrable incitement to physical violence) may go outside the boundaries of free speech in the legal sense, and where exactly these boundaries should be can be a heated topic of debate, but when we are within the boundaries of free speech, that means that there ought to not be "consequences" from exercising this fundamental freedom. If there are consequences, it's not a freedom anymore. It's pretty much the opposite of freedom. You have the right to ignore someone, or present criticism to what someone has said, but you don't have the right to start harassing people because of what they have said.
"Hate speech is not free speech."
Yes, it is. Especially so given that in the modern social justice ideology "hate speech" means pretty much "anything that goes against my political opinion".
If you say things like "there are only two genders", or "all these invented pronouns are ridiculous", or "men are not women", or "we should have stricter border control and limits to immigration", that's classified as "hate speech". The whole concept of "hate speech" is used as a political weapon to silence dissenters and ban them from every platform. This is very much the opposite of the principle of free speech.
But even if someone expresses very (actually) racist opinions about people, that's still free speech. The expression of hatred and prejudice is a form of free speech, and is your fundamental right, even if most other people find it disgusting. They are free to find it disgusting, but it's still free speech. Not all free speech has to be nice and amicable. It can be really horrendous and disgusting. But, once again, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
In many European countries you can find yourself in jail if you spout overtly racist things. Or if you burn a Bible or a Koran. This goes against the principle of free speech, and it's one of the things where the United States is better than these other countries, because in the United States there are no legal consequences for doing those things. I myself oppose these laws here because they are a fundamental breach of the principle of free speech. If you want to dress up in full Nazi uniform, do the Roman salute, shout "hail Hitler!" and express your disdain for Jews, be my guest. I will find it disgusting, but I don't think you should go to jail for that, unless you start actually hurting people (and I'm not talking about hurt feelings here). Currently in many European countries you will, however.
"Free speech only bounds the government."
From a legal perspective maybe, but as said, there are two aspects to free speech: The strictly legal definition, and the principle. If someone claims to support free speech, but then justifies the discrimination of people based on their opinions because "free speech only restricts the government", then that someone is being a hypocrite. If you are for free speech, then you should defend people's rights to it even in non-legal settings, even if you strongly disagree with what's being said and don't want to hear it. Else you are just being a hypocrite. You have the right to walk away, you have the right to present criticism (preferably in an orderly and civil manner), but you don't have the right to actively stop, hinder or interfere with people's right to express their opinion to willing listeners, or hindering those listeners from getting access to those opinions.
There's the legal aspect of free speech, which deals with what the government can and cannot do to a citizen due to that person's speech. In general, this means that the government can not punish someone for expressing their opinion, with a quite narrow set of exceptions (defamation, demonstrable incitement to physical violence or crime, etc.)
Then there's the philosophical sociopolitical aspect of free speech. With this I refer to the principle of right to free speech, the respect that we ought to have to this fundamental and inalienable right. This doesn't mean we have to listen to every opinion, or agree with every opinion, or avoid presenting our criticism of that opinion (in fact, very much the contrary). However, this does mean that we respect people's right to free speech in that we don't actively try to stop people from expressing their opinions that we don't like, anywhere and everywhere, try to actively censor them and stop other people from hearing those opinions. This is the principle that Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Currently the right to free speech is under heavy attack in the western world, even though the western world should be the bastion of free speech, with zealots trying to suppress it and create a totalitarian system where only one political view and one set of opinions is allowed. Yet, even many people who oppose these zealots sometimes have themselves misconceptions about free speech.
Such as the following:
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences."
Actually, that's exactly what it means. In both meanings of the term, ie. legally and socially.
The right to free speech means precisely that you can express your opinion without legal or social repercussions. From the legal perspective it means precisely that there are no legal consequences. From the more sociopolitical aspect, if you are a supporter of freedom of speech, that means you should support people's rights to express their opinion without the fear of severe and permanent social backlash, shunning, ostracizing, harassment, bullying and violence, even if you heavily disagree with that opinion. People may freely dismiss that person's opinions and start ignoring it, and even ignore everything else that person has said and will say, but that's about it. As long as that person isn't actually hurting anybody, he can have his opinions, and you are free to ignore it, or present criticism of it (preferably in a calm, rational manner).
(And no, presenting criticism and counter-arguments is not a "consequence", although some people spouting that sentiment might be referring to that. Criticism and counter-arguments are not only valid and acceptable, in fact being able to present them is in itself part of the fundamental right to free speech.)
Some things (such as demonstrable incitement to physical violence) may go outside the boundaries of free speech in the legal sense, and where exactly these boundaries should be can be a heated topic of debate, but when we are within the boundaries of free speech, that means that there ought to not be "consequences" from exercising this fundamental freedom. If there are consequences, it's not a freedom anymore. It's pretty much the opposite of freedom. You have the right to ignore someone, or present criticism to what someone has said, but you don't have the right to start harassing people because of what they have said.
"Hate speech is not free speech."
Yes, it is. Especially so given that in the modern social justice ideology "hate speech" means pretty much "anything that goes against my political opinion".
If you say things like "there are only two genders", or "all these invented pronouns are ridiculous", or "men are not women", or "we should have stricter border control and limits to immigration", that's classified as "hate speech". The whole concept of "hate speech" is used as a political weapon to silence dissenters and ban them from every platform. This is very much the opposite of the principle of free speech.
But even if someone expresses very (actually) racist opinions about people, that's still free speech. The expression of hatred and prejudice is a form of free speech, and is your fundamental right, even if most other people find it disgusting. They are free to find it disgusting, but it's still free speech. Not all free speech has to be nice and amicable. It can be really horrendous and disgusting. But, once again, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
In many European countries you can find yourself in jail if you spout overtly racist things. Or if you burn a Bible or a Koran. This goes against the principle of free speech, and it's one of the things where the United States is better than these other countries, because in the United States there are no legal consequences for doing those things. I myself oppose these laws here because they are a fundamental breach of the principle of free speech. If you want to dress up in full Nazi uniform, do the Roman salute, shout "hail Hitler!" and express your disdain for Jews, be my guest. I will find it disgusting, but I don't think you should go to jail for that, unless you start actually hurting people (and I'm not talking about hurt feelings here). Currently in many European countries you will, however.
"Free speech only bounds the government."
From a legal perspective maybe, but as said, there are two aspects to free speech: The strictly legal definition, and the principle. If someone claims to support free speech, but then justifies the discrimination of people based on their opinions because "free speech only restricts the government", then that someone is being a hypocrite. If you are for free speech, then you should defend people's rights to it even in non-legal settings, even if you strongly disagree with what's being said and don't want to hear it. Else you are just being a hypocrite. You have the right to walk away, you have the right to present criticism (preferably in an orderly and civil manner), but you don't have the right to actively stop, hinder or interfere with people's right to express their opinion to willing listeners, or hindering those listeners from getting access to those opinions.
Comments
Post a Comment