Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Abraham Ozo]

“If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ~George Orwell
 
According to Iowa State University, free speech is the right to articulate opinions and ideas without interference, retaliation, or punishment from the government. This implies that one has the right to say whatever one wants to say without getting interrupted or punished.
 
But in today’s world, is free speech really free?
 
We have witnessed police officers brutally assault peaceful protesters. People have been hated for expressing their views on controversial issues. Celebrities and top figures have gotten canceled because of statements they made or tweeted. All these oppose the core principle of free speech. Free speech should be free. One does not have to like it or enjoy it, but you should not tell people how they should air their opinions.
 
According to Wikipedia, free speech and expression have a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. Its benefits cannot be overemphasized. Free speech has been the key to change. Civil rights, women’s suffrage (the right to vote), and minority rights are all the benefits of free speech. Without free speech, the government will be left unchecked, leading to an authoritarian or dictatorial style of government. We all know how bad it ends. Free speech creates a fair chance for everyone to be creative. It encourages the diversification of ideas.
 
On the other hand, free speech can push acceptable boundaries. What do we do in cases like these? Do you deny people their right to express themselves because it hurts some people? The answer is a big NO! As Justice Louis Brandeis famously stated, “The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
 
As libertarians, we must uphold the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and allow people to exercise their free speech peacefully, whether we agree with their point of view or not. We must not exert or initiate any form of force against another individual’s freedom of speech because it is a form of aggression against the person’s liberty. You must defend free speech in all its forms, even when the expressed ideas are offensive or controversial. As libertarians, we must always remember that the right to free speech is universal; it cannot be contingent on the speech's content or the speaker's popularity. As Noam Chomsky would say, “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like.”
 

[Borneo]

Free speech is fundamental to democracy and human rights, as it allows the free exchange of ideas and holds power accountable. George Orwell’s quote highlights that true liberty involves defending speech that challenges or discomforts us. While laws may protect free speech in theory, the reality is more complex in today’s world.

Instances of censorship, “cancel culture,” and violent crackdowns on protests reveal the tension between free expression and societal norms. The right to free speech, as defined by institutions like Iowa State University, is meant to protect individuals from government retaliation, but social consequences have blurred this protection. Celebrities and public figures facing backlash for controversial views exemplify this challenge. Though public accountability is important, it should not devolve into silencing dissent.

Historically, free speech has been pivotal for progress. Movements for civil rights, gender equality, and other social reforms relied on the ability to voice unpopular opinions. Without it, authoritarianism thrives, stifling creativity and innovation. Justice Brandeis’ argument that more speech—not censorship—is the solution underscores the importance of debate and dialogue over suppression.

However, free speech does not absolve individuals from responsibility. It must be exercised within the framework of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), respecting others' rights while promoting peaceful discourse. Offensive speech should be met with counterarguments, not forceful suppression. Upholding free speech means defending even unpopular or uncomfortable ideas, as Noam Chomsky emphasizes.

Ultimately, true freedom of expression transcends personal agreement with the content. It is a commitment to the principle that all voices, regardless of popularity or controversy, deserve to be heard.

[TAGinThought]

The problem is that speech, like any other form of interaction, can be used as a weapon/attack against another. A slur or the call to ostracise people from society might not physically hurt a person, but if enough people rally under that sentiment then people will start to be hurt.

As such, the freedom of speech as it is present in the USA is extremely dangerous. Other countries have acknowledged this problem and actually codified solutions to it. In germany for example you have the right to a free opinion; you do however not have the right to express this opinion as hate speech. Equally, you are not allowed to spread information which has been proven to be false, or lie about others. While a certain amount of these protections also appear in the US law, the base principle of freedom of speech means that any additional protections that have to be implemented fight a hard battle.

The reason why the NAP fails in every day life is because not all things said are factually based opinions. People whose aim is to spread hate do not care if you come at them with counter arguments, they just want their hate to be heard. As such, counterarguments fail in disarming their "arguments" and are ultimately not enough to combat hate.

Speech with this aim, to solely spread hate, therefore has to be curbed another way, and as such the censoring of such speech is important for the long-term health of society. Now mind you I am not talking about opinions that are just controverse, I am talking about geniuine hate speech, objectively false facts or the intentional omission of facts to twist their message. Explicitely, a discussion about something like the age at which trans people should be able to medically transition without their parents or a doctors permission is something that can be discussed based on facts from sociology, psychology, and biology. The fact that trans people exist, on the other hand, is not something that can be discussed; it is a fact and immutable. Equivalently, there should be no law that allows you to insult someone based on an intrinsic characteristic of that person like race, gender, or sexuality.

All these examples are much better handled with the german law, the freedom to an opinion, as opposed to the US law, the freedom of speech. Under german law the examples I have given can be outlawed without cutting into the basic human rights; under the american law they can't be outlawed without cutting into the basic human rights provided by the american constitution.

[Fried Egg]

...the censoring of such speech is important for the long-term health of society.

The problem with laws against hate speech is people will try to use those laws to shut down speech they simply don't like because it offends them. They can very easily turn into laws that protect people from being offended. Also, hateful intent can be a notoriously difficult thing to prove so that is why anti-hate legislation usually rests on the victim's perception. See the other thread I started in this form entitled "Hate Crimes" for a lengthy discussion on the subject.

More generally, laws and institutions setup to combat "bad" speech (be it hateful, misinformation, etc.) inevitably ends up being used by the government to shut down speech it doesn't like or contradicts the narrative that they are trying to weave.

All these examples are much better handled with the german law, the freedom to an opinion, as opposed to the US law, the freedom of speech.

I would not be so sure. I have heard quite a few chilling stories about the censorship of free speech in Germany in recent times. Just look at the new advice centre recently launched aimed at combatting fake news and misinformation. It is a group of NGO's that are left wing extensions of a supposedly neutral state. One of which includes the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, which has a lot of experience in creating institutions for the sole purpose of getting Germans to snitch on one another. For example, in July 2022 the Foundation established an office to report “antifeminist activities”, with the aim of documenting incidents “below the threshold of criminal liability”. This is similar to the loathed “non-crime hate incidents” in the UK.

This new initiative is designed to collect information on people and organisations who hold the wrong kinds of views — not illegal views — with the aim of “deprogramming” them. These are not the activities of a liberal state. This is Soviet Union-style paranoia, where everyone is encouraged to spy on their neighbours.

As libertarians, we must uphold the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and allow people to exercise their free speech peacefully, whether we agree with their point of view or not.

I agree with this but the problem with the above statement is you prefix it with "as libertarians". Anyone who reads that and does not think of themselves as a libertarian will immediately feel free to dismiss this assertion.

I think it's really important to realise that "free speech" is not just a libertarian concern. It is an important concern for anyone that wants to live in a liberal democracy.

[Sy Borg]

As far as I can tell, there is almost complete free speech when it comes to white males. Basically, people can engage in hate speech against white males without punishment, where equivalent statements about women or any other ethnic group is tightly policed in the west, in what is known as two-tier policing. Likewise, once can use hate speech against Christianity, but not other creeds.

It is assumed that there is no cost in such uneven protections, but those costs will no doubt become more apparent over time.

That's the issue with regulation of speech - being even-handed at a time when many groups expect and demand special treatment as recompense for supposed past wrongs, as if wrongs were never perpetrated before colonialism and good was never done before suffrage.

[Fried Egg]

As far as I can tell, there is almost complete free speech when it comes to white males. Basically, people can engage in hate speech against white males without punishment, where equivalent statements about women or any other ethnic group is tightly policed in the west, in what is known as two-tier policing. Likewise, once can use hate speech against Christianity, but not other creeds.

It is assumed that there is no cost in such uneven protections, but those costs will no doubt become more apparent over time.

That's the issue with regulation of speech - being even-handed at a time when many groups expect and demand special treatment as recompense for supposed past wrongs, as if wrongs were never perpetrated before colonialism and good was never done before suffrage.

I think it's something to do with the concept of "punching up" and "punching down". It's okay to punch up but not down. And that concept stems from a focus on the power dynamic arising from a hierarchy of status deriving from which group identities have been historically more oppressed vs those who have been historically more privileged.

This is what tends to happen in societies that restrict free speech though is that speech is divided into right think and wrong think and it is those that speak "wrongly" that are censored. I don't think it is even possible for restrictions on free speech to be even handed.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it's really important to realise that "free speech" is not just a libertarian concern. It is an important concern for anyone that wants to live in a liberal democracy.

I think it's important to realise that free speech has never been free; there have always been constraints. Rightly, IMO. Hate speech is perhaps the most extreme example of such righteous constraints. Libertarians champion the Right to Insult and the Right to Offend as 'freedom of speech', when they are no such thing. They're just unreasonable, and, well, hateful.

[Fried Egg]

I think it's really important to realise that "free speech" is not just a libertarian concern. It is an important concern for anyone that wants to live in a liberal democracy.

I think it's important to realise that free speech has never been free; there have always been constraints. Rightly, IMO. Hate speech is perhaps the most extreme example of such righteous constraints. Libertarians champion the Right to Insult and the Right to Offend as 'freedom of speech', when they are no such thing. They're just unreasonable, and, well, hateful.

Well, we exhausted all our arguments in the "Hate Speech" thread on this subject and couldn't come to an agreement so I don't see the point in going over old ground here. All I will say here is that there is no democracy without the freedom to criticise and cause offence. That's the hill I'm going to die on and there can be no compromise. See you on the battlefield.

[Sy Borg]

As far as I can tell, there is almost complete free speech when it comes to white males. Basically, people can engage in hate speech against white males without punishment, where equivalent statements about women or any other ethnic group is tightly policed in the west, in what is known as two-tier policing. Likewise, once can use hate speech against Christianity, but not other creeds.

It is assumed that there is no cost in such uneven protections, but those costs will no doubt become more apparent over time.

That's the issue with regulation of speech - being even-handed at a time when many groups expect and demand special treatment as recompense for supposed past wrongs, as if wrongs were never perpetrated before colonialism and good was never done before suffrage.

I think it's something to do with the concept of "punching up" and "punching down". It's okay to punch up but not down. And that concept stems from a focus on the power dynamic arising from a hierarchy of status deriving from which group identities have been historically more oppressed vs those who have been historically more privileged.

This is what tends to happen in societies that restrict free speech though is that speech is divided into right think and wrong think and it is those that speak "wrongly" that are censored. I don't think it is even possible for restrictions on free speech to be even handed.

Yes, I think you're right. Of course, the notion of "punching down" is, when use in reference to groups of millions, is devoid of logic.

Consider Sam Kerr's case - a multimillion dollar celebrity and "woman of colour" insulted and racially abused a white male cop. The court basically deemed that this celebrity's woman's abuse of a working class man was perfectly fine. Why? Because they saw the incident through an intersectional lens - The Oppressed fighting back against the Oppressor. In truth, we had a powerful, self-entitled celebrity riding roughshod over little people, just because she could.

[Mounce574]

...the censoring of such speech is important for the long-term health of society.

What is healthy for one person isn't always the same for another. By censoring free speech, it is also impeding others from gaining information from opposing views and making a decision on what side they choose to be on.
.

All these examples are much better handled with the german law, the freedom to an opinion, as opposed to the US law, the freedom of speech.

Freedom of opinion? Everyone has their own opinion. If I were a German, I could think that Germany is the worst place in world to live. That would be my opinion. Say they support causes A, B, and C that I find are reprehensible. Why should I not be allowed to express this thought and find support from like minded people so we can make a change to a more tolerable setting; therefore, changing my opinion to thinking Germany is a utiopia?

As libertarians, we must uphold the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and allow people to exercise their free speech peacefully, whether we agree with their point of view or not.

All people should uphold the NAP.

I am reminded of a schoolyard rhyme that shows censorship as pointless. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me." Just because I say something you don't like, getting offended is just a waste of time.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it's really important to realise that "free speech" is not just a libertarian concern. It is an important concern for anyone that wants to live in a liberal democracy.

I think it's important to realise that free speech has never been free; there have always been constraints. Rightly, IMO. Hate speech is perhaps the most extreme example of such righteous constraints. Libertarians champion the Right to Insult and the Right to Offend as 'freedom of speech', when they are no such thing. They're just unreasonable, and, well, hateful.

Well, we exhausted all our arguments in the "Hate Speech" thread on this subject and couldn't come to an agreement so I don't see the point in going over old ground here.

That probably makes sense.

All I will say here is that there is no democracy without the freedom to criticise and cause offence.

That is not "democracy", as I understand it. That's just a Charter of Intolerance, an 'excuse' for discourtesy.

That's the hill I'm going to die on and there can be no compromise. See you on the battlefield.

Oh, no. You go on ahead. I'll follow later, when the conflict has died down. I see no need for battle. This is not a reason for conflict, as I see it, but only for discussion. And, perhaps, persuasion?

Agreement, maybe even compromise, is the way such things are managed, I think? If conflict should happen on the way, that is (more than) regrettable, but in the end, settlement comes with agreement, and this is a matter that involves social codes, and how humans can/could live co-operatively together, yes?

[Fried Egg]

All I will say here is that there is no democracy without the freedom to criticise and cause offence.

That is not "democracy", as I understand it. That's just a Charter of Intolerance, an 'excuse' for discourtesy.

Yes, I know where you stand. You're happy for people to lose their job for stating (their understanding of) biological facts.

Laws designed to inhibit freedom of speech in order protect people from offence or misinformation are always inevitably weaponised by those that want to shut down discussion on the issue. That includes the state itself which is why such laws are incompatible with a functional democracy.

Do you consider Russia a democracy? The freedom to go out and vote means nothing if there is no freedom to criticise the regime.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, I know where you stand. You're happy for people to lose their job for stating (their understanding of) biological facts.

Er, not true.

Do you consider Russia a democracy?

Really? This would seem to be a simple insult, wrapped in a question. When did you stop beating your wife?

[Fried Egg]

Yes, I know where you stand. You're happy for people to lose their job for stating (their understanding of) biological facts.

Er, not true.

Er, yes you did:

If being discourteous and hurtful is more important to you than respecting your fellows, then IMO you *should* lose your job, or be dismissed from it.

Do you consider Russia a democracy?

Really? This would seem to be a simple insult, wrapped in a question. When did you stop beating your wife?

I'm trying to make the point that freedom of speech, to criticise and even insult is integral to democracy and you can't dispense with free speech and still call it democracy. No, I'm not saying we've gone as far as Russia. Just using a more clear cut case to illustrate my point.

You find that insulting? Clearly I deserve to be censored then. Lose my job even.

[Sy Borg]

Still, some limits need to be observed. In South Africa there are giant mobs that get together, shouting "Kill the whites" with no punishment. Afterwards, when whites are killed are tortured, no one is surprised. If a group of whites did that about blacks, they would be reviled as akin to KKK and punished, and the western media would be most hostile. If black people do it, no problem, apparently.

Yet the western media is silent on this call for genocide (the Boers have been in SA for 400 years - they are true African people).