Freedom of Speech

The most interesting people break taboos, create mischief, and stir things up. The most impactful people are eccentric, ridiculous, and yes, disagreeable. It is on their behalf that we must take a stand. Take a stand and defend our freedom of speech.

Free speech and free thought are the open roads in our minds. They allow for exploration. They allow for new discoveries. And sometimes we take a wrong turn on the road to discovery. Each train of thought is a small risk. A risk of coming to the wrong conclusion, or a cruel conclusion, or a harmful conclusion.

That is a risk, for sure. But here is the thing: at those bad conclusions, we course-correct. We self-optimize. And we do so based largely on feedback from our peers, which is to say, based on our ability to share those thoughts.

The level of fear towards the risks that come along with free speech and free thought is rising. When did we become so risk-averse? So afraid of our own thoughts? How did we lose faith in each other, the faith to make those course-corrections, the faith to keep striving to get it right?

We have evolved over the course of history, and the scientific consensus has evolved along with us. We’ve believed in bloodletting, alchemy, all sorts of superstitions. How would our understanding of the world evolved had we not had dissenters willing to stand up and question the common knowledge? And if we had denied those dissenters the feedback of their peers?

Peer feedback, of course, is critical. We learn from each other. We learn from each other when we are allowed to learn by making mistakes and learning as we grow. Which is why suppression of free speech is sure to backfire: a generation protected from fake news and hate speech will never develop the muscles required to identify it and to combat it. Ultimately they will become more susceptible to it.

Speech can be nasty and cruel. We’ve all been hurt by speech and we’ve all hurt others with speech. Often without realizing it. It is a beautiful utopian idea that we can remove cruelty from speech. And of course, an unrealistic fantasy.

We accept the unpleasantness of speech and we accept the risks of an unconstrained discourse because the slippery slope of censorship is far more dangerous.

Censorship has never been on the right side of history. They banned Voltaire and Rousseau. They banned Marquee de Sade. They banned Salman Rushdie and Kurt Vonnegut. And those same wicked winds are blowing today. They want to ban scientists, thinkers, journalists, podcasters and philosophers - and now they are armed with technology platforms that enable them to do so efficiently, silently, and at scale.

I can hear the furious typing of internet commentators everywhere: BUT THEY ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES! PRIVATE COMPANIES!

Look, I don’t want to get into a technical discussion on the letter of the law. I want to talk about the spirit of the law, and why it matters. Rules written at a time when a single voice could reach dozens in a town square can’t possibly apply to the internet age when discourse itself has been monopolized by a handful of corporations and when speech can reach the entire globe in moments. Where just a couple platforms hold the keys to which ideas our journalists and politicians can be exposed to.

Platforms where policy-makers go to put their finger on the pulse of the people. Now all they get is their finger on a sanitized pulse. Or worse, a manipulated pulse.

To be clear: big tech censorship is dangerous.

We’ve tried all of this before. With the best of intentions we ask big tech to own the keys to speech today. With the best of intentions we asked courts and politicians and churches to own the keys to speech in the past. And the results today will be no different than the results of the past.

Think about it: who makes the final decision on acceptable speech? These gatekeepers, by definition, must be exposed to the harmful ideas they are forced to evaluate. What makes them immune to the harmful effects that the rest of us are susceptible to? What magic powers do they possess to judge morality of acceptable speech while enjoying a special class status that allows themselves to be exposed to it? What superpowers of judgment and kindness and logic do these select few possess that the rest of us do not?

What consequences will they face when they make a mistake?

And what if a bad actor assumes that gatekeeper role one day?

And in a society where we all agreed on a single acceptable view, how would a heretic correct? How would they voice their ideology to others who can point out its flaws? It would instead fester, grow, and eventually find dark corners where it could thrive.

I believe that humans have the ability and the will to reason and to come to truth with their own sovereign agency, and with an open forum for feedback and discourse. I reject the idea that we are so easily guided or misguided by whoever happens to drop a podcast or a tweet in front of them. Anyone who thinks so little of people has become the bigot they fear.

Suppressing speech is to believe that we are wicked, stupid, and that in the free marketplace of ideas, the worst ideas will win. 

The courage to defend free speech - unpopular speech, detestable speech, and yes, even hate speech - is to have faith in each other. It represents faith and confidence in the goodness of people, and the belief that good ideas will win when exposed to the light of day.

We must have the courage to expose ourselves to harsh truths and unkind realities. We must expose ourselves to new ideas. Big ideas. Unpopular ideas. Fresh ways of thinking. Some ideas will be wrong. And we’ll grow.

Question authority. Distrust bureaucracy. Speak freely.