A case for freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is one of the core values of western society. Throughout most of history, it was suppressed in one way or another until, through the gradual progress of our factual and ethical knowledge, we realized that it is one of the fundamental characteristics of a functional society. Its importance, which will be analyzed henceforth, is twofold; as a mechanism for moving closer to the truth[1] and as a value (i.e., a basic human right).
[1] Truth will be examined in a practical sense under the Correspondence theory of truth; i.e., a statement/opinion is true if its content corresponds with reality. Absolute truth is, therefore, a truth that completely and unquestionably corresponds to reality.
Karl
Popper, one of the leading philosophers of science, formulated the definition
of a scientific theory (as opposed to pseudoscientific) as we know it today; he
argued that in order for a theory to be scientific,
it must be formulated in a way which allows for the possibility of falsification (i.e., allows to be proven
false). In turn, the theory on which most unsuccessful falsifications were
attempted can be considered the correct one so far. It is important to notice
that, by following Popper’s logic, the possibility of falsification never goes
away; the fact that a theory is currently deemed correct doesn’t mean that
future evidence won’t disprove it or that a better theory won’t be found.
Theories can, in other words, be compared and rank-ordered, but no theory can
ever be absolutely true. From this, it is evident that our main methodology of
understanding the world - the scientific method - is based on a trial-and-error
process; a theory is formulated and is then tested rigorously to determine its
truthfulness, which means, given our erroneous nature in combination with the
complexity of the world, that most of our theories will sooner or later turn
out to be incorrect. How we understand the world is, thus, based on errors. The
same is true for the opinions we hold (and from them, the actions we make) on a
daily basis; we struggle to improve by learning from our mistakes and gradually
ruling out incorrect opinions, which is mostly done through articulated
interactions with others. Thus, two conclusions follow; in order to improve
(i.e., to move closer to the truth), we must; (1) learn from our mistakes, (2)
formulate our theories clearly to allow the possibility of finding mistakes.
With this in mind, what would happen if we were forbidden to make mistakes in
the public sphere? Limiting the freedom of speech would mean limiting the
possibility of finding our mistakes which would inevitably disable our
progress. At the same time, given that those who would be in charge of limiting
speech are just as prone to errors as the rest, along with the fact that no one
has insight on absolute truth, it would necessarily follow that correct
opinions would be silenced along with the incorrect ones. A minority would, in
this way, arbitrarily steal the valuable lessons of mistakes as well as the
truth (which they may mistake for untruth or specifically suppress in cases of
corruption) from the majority. As John Stuart Mill asserted in his work On
liberty; “The
peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing
the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent
from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right,
they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong,
they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and
livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
One of the necessary
preconditions for understanding the importance of free speech as a value was
correcting the outlook on the relationship between the individual and the
collective. Throughout most of history, the individual was looked upon merely
as a cog in the machine of society - this was articulated differently depending
on the form of human association (i.e., kingdom, empire, state, etc.), but the
overarching theme was that the good of the collective was of primary concern.
Similarly, the rulers of the collective were looked upon as a higher instance
which gave them absolute power; they weren’t a part of the society but rather
those who form the society from the outside according to their desires. Without
seeing the individual as the central point of a society, free speech was
necessarily deemed as dangerous (and hence, limited) because it was thought
that it might be used as a weapon of the individual against the collective (i.e.,
threatening the infamous “greater good”). Similarly, without seeing everyone
(including the ruling parties) as equal parts of the society, there was no
reason for giving everyone the same opportunity to speak without restrictions -
for instance, the opinions of the rulers were usually not to be questioned. As
history showed, absolute power and the erroneous assumption that there is a
possibility of attaining absolute truth went hand in hand - as soon as we
became more epistemologically skeptical, through the progress of our knowledge,
we divided the power between various branches of government, and eventually
licensed the totality of the population to make societal decisions in order to
avoid abuse of power and allow the possibility of correction if mistakes are
recognized. Hence, the aforementioned learning from mistakes is, apart from
science, also evident in the way in which we organized our society[2]. Given all
of this, what purpose does free speech serve as a value (or, in precise terms,
a natural right[3])? It
allows the individual to articulate his distinctive opinions and, thus, express
his uniqueness. It guarantees equality between individuals as it gives everyone
the same opportunity to assert their beliefs. Finally, it allows for a critical
examination of each part of the society evenly; from the citizens through the
institutions to the government. Free speech is a fundamental value because it
serves as the first line of defense of the basic characteristics that
constitute a full-fledged individual and a functional society.
[2] It is for this reason that Karl Popper’s philosophy of science expanded into his political theory as he drew a parallel between falsifiability in science with falsifiability in politics which is, as he argued, only truly (i.e., without bloodshed) possible in liberal democracies.
[3] As opposed to positive rights which are those rights that are prescribed by the state, natural rights are inherent human rights that are independent of any political framework (i.e., given to us by nature - hence, natural).
So far, a general
overview of the reasons in favor of freedom of speech has been sketched out.
Perhaps, the best example of a country that used a similar logic while
constructing its foundational documents is the US. Their insistence on
individual freedoms (as the famous quote goes; “Give me liberty or give me
death”) is, arguably, one of the main reasons for their success as a liberal
democracy, and the importance of these freedoms shouldn’t be neglected even by
the country’s fiercest opponents. It is the case, nevertheless, that even the
US[4] has
certain boundaries put on freedom of speech which can be summarized as the
following; an individual can be prosecuted for his speech if it calls for
violence. So, even in the most laissez-fair country in this regard, not
everything is permitted which illustrates that there are good reasons for
limiting speech in certain ways seeing that it may facilitate violence, spread
hatred, hurt others, spread disinformation, etc. There are two arguments,
however, that overcome these concerns; firstly, it is difficult almost to the
point of impossibility to determine where the line should be drawn once we
start to limit free speech. Secondly, it is unclear who should be the one who
decides when such a line is crossed. To answer the first statement, the US has
decided to use “minimal necessary force” - i.e., only the most extreme examples
that directly and unequivocally call for violence may be punished by law. In
countries that don’t follow this example, the possibility of misuse seems to be
too high as too much faith is put in governments not exploiting their right to
limit speech by, for example, defining every criticism aimed against them as
hate speech. Similarly, as was the case many times through history, if you
allow the government to overreach its power in particular cases such as
emergencies, it is almost inevitable that some governments will invent an
emergency to rationalize taking more power. This is, in broad terms, one of the
fundamental arguments of classical liberalism; as Karl Popper brilliantly
posited, the main political question isn’t who should rule, but how should we
organize our communities so that unavoidably corrupt (or incompetent)
governments can’t cause too much damage. There is also something true in
stating that the people who would agree to be the judges of truth are probably
the last people who should be allowed to do it.
[4] Europe is stricter in this regard as “hate speech” is written in the law in many countries and consists of more than merely calling for violence. For example, it is extremely difficult to get ahold of a copy of Mein Kampf in Germany today - how that fact fails to correspond to the aforementioned necessity of thoroughly understanding our mistakes is clear.
In conclusion, the importance of freedom of speech can be articulated from two angles; (1) as the gradual pathway of building knowledge and (2) as a fundamental human value. The legal approach towards limiting speech should, thus, be in a way of minimal necessary force - i.e., limiting only those cases of speech that directly call for violent acts. This is concluded through simple cost-benefit analysis; the benefit of limiting speech is avoiding dangerous utterances while the cost is that anything can arbitrarily be molded into the definition of “dangerous speech”. This will, in turn, potentially disable the whole process of the trial-and-error with which we move closer to the truth as any “trial” can be deemed unsafe. What is more, it seems more prudent to allow for errors to be made rather than to suppress them because only in that way can we clearly learn why they are incorrect. With this in mind, it can be said that one should keep power away from those who would gladly take it upon themselves to make truth judgments for the whole society. It is simply not possible for a human to attain absolute and infallible truth (as science illustrates, falsifying is a never-ending process); thus, no one should be allowed to suppress speech based on a subjective judgment because it is always possible that this judgment is incorrect and/or corrupt - as John Stuart Mill argued; “...the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility”
Comments
Post a Comment