Aspects of Free Speech

Many books have been written — and will continue to be written — about the complexities of free speech. In the US, the issue was never simple, even from the beginning as the nation’s constitution was being written. But as time has passed through decades and centuries, as global cultures have expanded and interacted with increasing regularity, education spread from the elites of our founding fathers to Everyman, the “freedom” of speech has grown ever more complicated.

And the arrival of the Digital Era with all of its accelerations — of communication and knowledge and possibilities and challenges — has only exacerbated those complexities. Digitally amplified speech has reached a previously unimagined volume. And it is ubiquitous. And instantaneous. And the rush to use it has almost obliterated the thoughtfulness that ought to precede it.

And how have these new tools and their potentialities been handled by humanity? As one might imagine, with the very best and the very worst of intentions. And when it comes to “free speech” how do we ferret out the intentions behind what is said? We know that free speech is for the good of everyone all the time.” , what freedom of speech is allowing? There is no perfect formula for this, and each individual must is responsible for their own efforts to avoid being duped by those who want to deceive us. But always, foremost: question everything. Do not accept anything at face value.

I’ll write more about other aspects of free speech in future posts, but for the moment lets consider just one basic question (and it’s opposite) about the “free speech” that we take for granted every day.

Qui bono? Latin for “who benefits” Who benefits when speech is “free”? Who profits from what is being said? In the quote from Washington above it seems that it is absolutely necessary for the survival of democracy.

But then ask the opposite: who is harmed when speech is free? Those who listen and believe when a crazed seditionist rants against an existing democratic state, fostering rebellion. Women and children who are trafficked by the deceptions of organized criminals. Tweeners who explore “life” online, and are exposed too early to things that are far beyond their ability to understand. Teenagers whose natural curiosity leads them to seek out “forbidden” contact on a variety of subjects on the Internet. Those who believe lies masquerading as “the solemn truth”. The victims of scams. The victims of predators.

So, then, should speech be subject to curbs, guidelines, and regulations? If so, who creates those guardrails? Qui bono?

The point is, all free speech is not equal in value. Washington’s statement in the illustration at the beginning of this article is certainly true. It’s just not the whole truth. The truth is more complex. Far more complex.

So how should we think of free speech today? Its complicated.