Free Speech : A Philosophical Nightmare

Who do we give the right to speak? If you were to ask Socrates, he would say that speech is not worthy of protection if it undermines public order. If you were to ask the Party for Socialism and Liberation, an American communist party, they would say it would have to be unrestricted unless you hold favorable views towards capitalism. At the same time, if you were to ask an absolute monarchist in Thailand, they would say that if it criticizes the actions of the Royal Family, it will have to be banned. Who is correct here? How can we objectively determine who has the right to speak their views, and whose views should be suppressed? Do we suppress free speech in the Western world, and is that a disqualifier to call ourselves free?

Karl Popper, an eminent Austrian-British philosopher, detailed a paradox of free speech. If we were to allow all to speak in society, it would eventually cease to be tolerant of speech by the intolerant. We can all probably agree that, for example, fascists, should not be given a platform to spread a potentially hateful ideology. In the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) Section 86a, it is banned to use symbols of unconstitutional organizations, usually targeting imagery of communist movements and Nazis, as well as that of Russian militarist and Islamic extremist organizations, such as Daesh. This is indeed, objectively, suppression of freedom of speech, however, we most certainly do not disagree that these ideologies must not be permitted, at least within most of society, although demographics do seem to be changing, especially in the left-wing direction.

We could even have an argument that free speech itself is entirely contradictory. Why must we have to speak? Socrates, an advocate for a type of paleo-technocracy (rather ironic as he lived in the time of Athenian democracy), detailed this argument. I would struggle to give an exact definition of his ideology or a title for it, therefore, I will attempt to detail it without having to name it exactly, but my perception of his views was that of a technocrat, a belief that the best qualified must lead, and the people may not be able to decide this. This implies that if the public may not be able to decide, their views are not held on the public stage, but rather, are either private or entirely suppressed. Free speech can only serve to hurt as well. A bigot spewing hate speech is protected, which means that it can even be used to usher in fascism.

All these arguments have their merits and demerits, but I find that a plainly philosophical discussion, where I examine the different views, and attempt to detail an argument out of it, would be a rather dry article, not approachable for anyone except people who voraciously consume political philosophy. However, I would like to examine this contradiction with hate speech laws, and how we can handle hate speech as a society and provide my opinion. I would also like to justify that free speech is a worthy pursuit, necessary to maintain our society and our progressive values, but there is some nuance within it, as well as a potential resolution to the paradox of tolerance within the concept of free speech.

According to the Brazilian constitution of 1988, Article 5, item XLII, racism is an offense with no statute of limitations and no right of bail for the offender. Furthermore, in 2019, the Brazilian Supreme Court has directed to apply this provision for homophobia and transphobia as well. Absolutists on free speech would say that this is an unacceptable restriction on free speech. While homophobia, transphobia and racism may be disgusting to a large section of society, does this not mean that anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia and anti-racism could also be outlawed in an alt-right government? This is the inherent contradiction; however, I would argue that there are multiple arguments against why one would be justifiable, and why the other would not. For this argument, I would like to introduce the principle of harm reduction as an impetus to suppress some types of speech. This is the view espoused by John Stuart Mill in his 1859 essay On Liberty, where he says that the only purpose power should be exercised over a citizen is to prevent harm to others. The advocacy of racist politics or transphobia/homophobia provides an objective harm to humans, while the opposite provides no harm to humans beyond philosophical disagreements. Racist arguments for this most certainly exist, such as the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, however, they are not scientifically justified, therefore, I shall not present them here.

However, I am not arguing that free speech should be wantonly suppressed. The use of free speech rights significantly contributed to revolutions forming the nations we live in and belong to as citizens. I do not believe that free speech, especially in the political sphere, should be suppressed, except within the idea of harm reduction. A logical ask, therefore, would be, “well, shouldn’t we suppress communist thought, then? What about socialism? Did they not kill and suppress people for much of the 20th century?” I would evidently disagree with that as someone on the left of the political spectrum. Here, I would like to justify based on theoretical basis. While the actions of communists in the 20th century may have contributed to horrors according to certain sources, the theory of socialism itself does not advocate for the suppression of a people, unless you consider class division to be a people with inherent characteristics than a transitory classification. “Do actions not matter more than words, however?” would be a totally fair ask here, and I would like to roll this question into my next philosophical point. I do not believe that which may seem like a strange rejection of common wisdom. I think discussing theoretical basis of ideology unless it is specifically and inherently implying the suppression and hatred of a people is the right of a society of free speech. This may seem like I am making a convenient “No True Scotsman” argument, but I assure you, I am not. In common society, we regularly accept values which I believe are not particularly good for the health of our democracies or our societies. However, as those theoretical foundations are good in their intention, and do not imply the suppression of a people, I believe that those values must be discussed within society and freely so. “Does intention matter here?”, you may ask, the ever-astute hypothetical reader of this article. I would argue that most ideologies have the intent of good, in specific circumstances, therefore, that is a moot point. Even the most abhorrent ideologies one could think of had the intent of doing good, however, we have to evaluate via the most objective lens we can, as it is rather important to maintaining the utility of such an examination. The main purpose of suppression of free speech, as Stuart Mill would determine, is to prevent harm. I believe anything that does not permit the inherent suppression of a people based on an immutable characteristic entirely capable of a valid part of free speech.

I believe that this also solves Karl Popper’s paradox if we are to consider redefining our definition of freedom, to not the freedom in the literal sense of doing whatever we want, but freedom in the personal sense. A restriction on free speech, I would argue, taking the idea that freedom means what you want to do personally, but not in society, and that society itself is not free in its entirety as it always imposes constraints on freedom. Therefore, while it is the right to think and to live in any way you would desire, it is not your right to enforce it on society, in the same way it is not a right to impose yourself in an uncouth manner on society (such as causing a public disturbance). The laws of a free society, although that itself is inherently contradictory, however, should protect free speech as it is a vehicle for social change and helps improve the state we all live in, and equally so, utilize an objective reasoning based on scientific principles and harm reduction.

This was perhaps one of the more complex pieces of writing for the newspaper I have done. The consideration of the philosophical arguments for the freedom of speech was certainly an interesting thought experiment which I would love to consider again. Of course, my argument and my conclusion, that free speech doesn’t really exist in an environment of freedom as society itself is not free, therefore it isn’t a contradiction for society to impose limits on it, while also arguing that we must preserve free speech as a vehicle of progress, is colored by my biases as someone who is most certainly on the left-wing politically, and there can be aplenty justifications made as to why or why we must not respect these arguments. I encourage you to read, and to use your free speech as we have it, to come up with your own interpretations of these philosophical questions, so that we may usher in a new generation of critical thinkers, individuals who can hold the torch of liberty and carry it forth, lighting up the world for all to enjoy.

References

Bejan, Teresa M. “The Two Clashing Meanings of ‘Free Speech.’” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 4 Dec. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/.

Brüssow, Harald. “On opinion, freedom of speech and its responsibilities.” Microbial Biotechnology, vol. 15, no. 10, 2022, pp. 2507–2517, https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14119.

Daly, Jonathan. Western Civilization - Ideas, Politics, and Society, Volume I: To 1789. Cengage Learning, Inc, 2014.

Dijn, Annelien de. “The Idea of ‘freedom’ Has Two Different Meanings. Here’s Why.” Time, Time, 25 Aug. 2020, time.com/5882978/freedom-definition-history/

Fortinsky, Rachel, and Michael Leff. “Free Speech Is a Vital Part of Social Progress.” The Johns Hopkins News-Letter, 30 Nov. 2017, www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2017/11/free-speech-is-a-vital-part-of-social-progress/.

Goldman, Emma. “Emma Goldman, Anarchism: What It Really Stands For.” Digital History, 1910, www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1339.

Hendricks, Scotty. “Why Socrates Hated Democracy, and What We Can Do about It.” Big Think, 19 Apr. 2022, bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/why-socrates-hated-democracy-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/.

Illing, Sean. “A Philosopher Makes the Case against Free Speech.” Vox, 4 Mar. 2019, www.vox.com/2019/3/4/18197209/free-speech-philosophy-politics-brian-leiter.

Lehning, Sean. “Hate Speech Laws in Democratic Countries.” Compass Journal, 12 Feb. 2021, compassjournal.org/hate-speech-laws-in-democratic-countries/.

Murray, Iain. “The Importance of Free Speech to Human Progress: Iain Murray.” FEE Freeman Article, Foundation for Economic Education, 9 Jan. 2015, fee.org/articles/the-importance-of-free-speech-to-human-progress/.

Oltermann, Philip. “Berlin Police Investigate Roger Waters over Nazi-Style Uniform at Concert.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 May 2023, www.theguardian.com/music/2023/may/26/berlin-police-investigate-roger-waters-nazi-style-uniform-pink-floyd-concert.

Popper, Karl Raimund. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge, 2008.

School, Liberation, et al. “Program of the Party for Socialism and Liberation – Liberation School.” Liberation School – Revolutionary Marxism for a New Generation of Fighters, 9 Jan. 2023, liberationschool.org/program-of-the-party-for-socialism-and-liberation/.

Stegbauer, Andreas. “Www.Germanlawjournal.Com.” The Ban of Right-Wing Extremist Symbols According to Section 86a of the German Criminal Code , 2014, www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol08No06/PDF_Vol_08_No_06_549-560_Articles_Koenig.pdf.

van Mill, David. “Freedom of Speech.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 1 May 2017, plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/freedom-speech/.