Freedom of Speech vs Censorship

Restricting freedom of opinion and speech will sooner or later lead to a repressive society which brings along more fear, prohibitions and a degeneration of basic values.

Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of human society, allowing for the expression of a multitude of ideas and knowledge. It is also a fundamental prerequisite for healthy societal relationships, including those between citizens and their rulers. The main threat to the existence of free speech are suppressive authorities and specific authoritarian-inclined interest groups that often tend to curb all forms of speech, once these do not comply with their own views or make them feel ‘offended’ by fair criticism.

Totalitarian regimes, dictatorships and authoritarian-inclined movements have always massively restricted free thought and free speech, although they seldom admit it in their rhetoric. Modern democracies in the West and the East have gradually also stepped to the path of targeting free speech, which seems to indicate that all authority structures have an instinctive inclination towards setting restrictions on the free expression of ideas and thoughts and especially on the critique on the authority itself.

Speech, or words are the basis of creation in many cultures and traditions. Well-known is the Biblical statement of “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1.1-3), but in the Puranic tradition of India we also learn of Brahma who sitting on a lotus flower amidst the void hears the two syllables of “ta-pa”, meaning austerity or self-reflection, contemplating on which he is then able to bring forth the material reality. The same principle can be seen reflected also in literary fiction, for example, in the books of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, where the whole fantastic land of the story is brought forth by the unrestrained song of lion Aslan. What we say does not only reflect on the reality of things, but oftentimes produces it for us.

Throughout the ages, Humanist thinkers have hence highlighted the role and importance of free speech and the damages done by coming after the free expression of thoughts and opinions. One of such profound discussions was brought up by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in his essay On Liberty,

J.S.Mill (source: Wikimedia Commons)

wherein he laid down the groundwork for contemporary rational view of the importance of unrestricted free speech. He emphasizes the benefits of viewpoint diversity, the related need to provide a public check on authority, and the personal value of individuality. He argues strongly for the need to tolerate others’ expressions of opinion, even if that opinion is disrespectful or false, because critical challenge is an important means of intellectual and social development, while restricting the expression of opinion on public matters is a dangerous form of social control. Mill defends free speech also through striving towards truth and abstaining from dogmas:

"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions, that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."

Such a defence of free speech is clearly based on Mill's commonsense insight into the general level of comprehesion of various subject matters in the present-day civilization:

"/.../ That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-
truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest compari-
son of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good,
until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides
of the truth./.../"

An example of such highly protected freedom of speech in today's world is the United States, where the First Amendment of the Constitution prevents government from curtailing that freedom.

The First Amendment of the US constitution is strongly protecting the freedom of opinion and speech in the US

The protection of free speech has been specified by the Supreme Court in its standing landmark decision of Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) and later reaffirmed in Hess v. Indiana (1973), declaring that speech can be suppressed in the US only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action". Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections only if (1) the advocacy is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action. Otherwise, even speech that openly supports revolutionary activity is protected. US constitution does not provide the government with the power to decide which opinions are to be tolerated and which ones not, nor which opinions are to be regarded so-called hateful and thus deserving of repression, as governments have always been inclined to use such powers in order to prosecute minorities, rather than protect them. Tolerating negative (including "hateful") speech is not a weakness, but a strength that secures free speech rights for all groups, including the most unpopular ones. Otherwise, no one's freedom can really be guaranteed.

At the same time, US authorities have been prone to persecute government whistleblowers and journalistic activists by using specific legal clauses related to disclosing classified documents, e.g. on the charges of espionage (the US Espionage Act from 1917). One example of that is the case of Wikileaks, whose founder has been charged of espionage crimes and have lain in effective captivity already for more than a decade. The Espionage Act criminalizes the mere retention and communication of classified information, regardless of intent. The interpretation of the law does not distinguish between a person who discloses the information to help foreign forces undermine US national security and a person who discloses it to help the investigative press expose illegal government programs. Recent US administrations have prosecuted a growing number of government whistleblowers on these same charges. Such cases are meant to set the scene for showing any other insiders that there will be serious consequences if they dare not comply and will blow the whistle on government's shady undertakings. It goes without saying that freedom of speech is harmed by such persecution and both insiders and journalists are psychological targets.

The value of absolute freedom of speech has also been elegantly explained by psychologist Jordan B. Peterson (in 2017):

J.B.Peterson (source: Wikimedia Commons, Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0)

"I regard free speech as a prerequisite to a civilized society, because freedom of speech means that you can have combat with words. That's what it means. It doesn't mean that people can happily and gently exchange opinions. It means that we can engage in combat with words, in the battleground of ideas. And the reason that that's acceptable, and why it's acceptable that people's feelings get hurt during that combat, is that the combat of ideas is far preferable to actual combat."

It should be highlighted that in several European democracies, free speech is protected to a lesser degree than in the US. Over the past decades, more and more restrictions and practical enforcement of those restrictions have crept into European societies, taking, amongst others, different forms of tackling the so-called hate speech.

The health crisis years of 2020-2022 saw a significant shift towards a censoring of free speech, especially on the internet and social media platforms, including that of scientists, doctors, journalists and researchers in the East and West by political and corporate power, under the guileful guise of battling ‘misinformation’, ‘hate speech’, ‘anti-science statements’ etc. Such ‘nuanced’ interventions were meant to make it clear that some opinions were not permitted to be talked of – those that the power groups did not like or approve of.

It is evident from history that a society that allows specific interests and ideologies to start restricting one's freedom of speech and expression will gradually bring along more fear, more prohibitions and a quick degeneration of basic values. This is a path that leads to a repressive society, which inhibits a free exchange of ideas and individual self-realization. It should be fought against by all responsible and capable people.