I have written earlier about common misconceptions about free speech that especially the regressive left espouses (out of ignorance or on purpose). That blog post goes into a lot more detail about it, but here's a very quick summary:
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences": On the contrary, that's exactly what it means. If there are consequences to you from you expressing your opinion, any sort of punishment, then it's not free speech anymore; it's restricted speech. (Receiving criticism is not a "consequence" in this regard. Presenting criticism is itself very much part of the fundamental notion of free speech.)
"Hate speech is not free speech": Yes, it is. Whether you find an opinion abhorrent or not has no bearing on whether it's free speech or not. As long as an expression of opinion is not a demonstrable and direct incitement to violence or crime, that directly and demonstrably causes people to commit crimes (not just in theory, but in actuality), then it's free speech and should not be punished. You don't need to like what is being said. It's still free speech.
"Free speech only bounds the government": Legally maybe. However, all these sentiments are almost always presented by people of the "I support free speech but" kind. If you support free speech and think that something should not be legally punishable, then it's highly hypocritical to try to act as a jury, judge and executioner using vigilantism, and try to silence or punish someone anyway for what they have said.
Due to some conversations I have had online, I would like to amend the above with a couple more.
These are claims often presented by social justice warriors who support "protesting" speeches, especially in university campuses, by making loud noises to disrupt the speech:
"He is not stopped from speaking. He can still say whatever he wants."
Either by ignorance or deliberate malice, some of these people, especially social justice activists, have this misconception that "free speech" merely means that the person is not physically stopped from speaking, from sounding out words. Whether these words can be heard and understood by other people is not part of it.
That's not the only thing that the fundamental concept of free speech means.
Free speech is the fundamental right to express your opinions and impart information without requiring permission, without impediment, and without punishment. Free speech is also the right to receive information and to hear what is being said, if you so wish, without requiring permission, without impediment, and without punishment.
This principle is, in fact, encoded in most constitutions.
Stopping the message from being heard or understood by a willing audience is censorship, the very opposite of free speech. Stopping an audience, which is willing to listen the message, from receiving that message, is censorship. Nobody should be forced to listen to an opinion, but likewise nobody should be stopped from listening to it, if they so wish.
"Free speech does not mean you are entitled to an audience."
Nobody can be forced to listen to a speech, but likewise nobody should be stopped from listening a speech, if they wish to do so. Stopping a willing audience from hearing and understanding what is being said is an infringement of their fundamental right to free speech. The right to free speech is not just the right to impart information and express your opinion, but also the right to receive information and opinions without impediment and punishment.
If, for example, a government were to stop a live TV broadcast in order to stop the message conveyed by a speaker from reaching the population, that would be bona fide censorship, and a breach of the fundamental notion of free speech. They cannot weasel themselves out of it by arguing "well, we are not physically stopping him from speaking, it's just that he's not entitled to an audience". It's still censorship. (In fact, it's the most common form of censorship.)
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences": On the contrary, that's exactly what it means. If there are consequences to you from you expressing your opinion, any sort of punishment, then it's not free speech anymore; it's restricted speech. (Receiving criticism is not a "consequence" in this regard. Presenting criticism is itself very much part of the fundamental notion of free speech.)
"Hate speech is not free speech": Yes, it is. Whether you find an opinion abhorrent or not has no bearing on whether it's free speech or not. As long as an expression of opinion is not a demonstrable and direct incitement to violence or crime, that directly and demonstrably causes people to commit crimes (not just in theory, but in actuality), then it's free speech and should not be punished. You don't need to like what is being said. It's still free speech.
"Free speech only bounds the government": Legally maybe. However, all these sentiments are almost always presented by people of the "I support free speech but" kind. If you support free speech and think that something should not be legally punishable, then it's highly hypocritical to try to act as a jury, judge and executioner using vigilantism, and try to silence or punish someone anyway for what they have said.
Due to some conversations I have had online, I would like to amend the above with a couple more.
These are claims often presented by social justice warriors who support "protesting" speeches, especially in university campuses, by making loud noises to disrupt the speech:
"He is not stopped from speaking. He can still say whatever he wants."
Either by ignorance or deliberate malice, some of these people, especially social justice activists, have this misconception that "free speech" merely means that the person is not physically stopped from speaking, from sounding out words. Whether these words can be heard and understood by other people is not part of it.
That's not the only thing that the fundamental concept of free speech means.
Free speech is the fundamental right to express your opinions and impart information without requiring permission, without impediment, and without punishment. Free speech is also the right to receive information and to hear what is being said, if you so wish, without requiring permission, without impediment, and without punishment.
This principle is, in fact, encoded in most constitutions.
Stopping the message from being heard or understood by a willing audience is censorship, the very opposite of free speech. Stopping an audience, which is willing to listen the message, from receiving that message, is censorship. Nobody should be forced to listen to an opinion, but likewise nobody should be stopped from listening to it, if they so wish.
"Free speech does not mean you are entitled to an audience."
Nobody can be forced to listen to a speech, but likewise nobody should be stopped from listening a speech, if they wish to do so. Stopping a willing audience from hearing and understanding what is being said is an infringement of their fundamental right to free speech. The right to free speech is not just the right to impart information and express your opinion, but also the right to receive information and opinions without impediment and punishment.
If, for example, a government were to stop a live TV broadcast in order to stop the message conveyed by a speaker from reaching the population, that would be bona fide censorship, and a breach of the fundamental notion of free speech. They cannot weasel themselves out of it by arguing "well, we are not physically stopping him from speaking, it's just that he's not entitled to an audience". It's still censorship. (In fact, it's the most common form of censorship.)
Comments
Post a Comment