Banning Free Speech
The original tweet was by one Dr. Julia Grace Patterson @JujuliaGrace, who wrote: If you want Laurence Fox to be banned from Twitter, RT this.
There was no reference to anything specific Mr. Fox said violating known restrictions on free speech, this just seems to be a blanket wish to have his voice taken away from twitter because she disagrees with his views.
When others called her out for this, @HelenJC5 defended the view by saying:
“He has freedom of speech, what he isn’t necessarily entitled to is this platform to spread his views, and neither [do] you or I if those views are vile. Absolutely nothing to stop him going to stand at speakers corner in Hyde Park. With freedom comes consequences and responsibility”
As far as I can tell, this is a desire to remove dissenting voices from the platform, defended as rational because there are “consequences and responsibility” that come with freedom of speech.
Obviously she is right that citizenship and participation in a free society brings certain rights, as well as responsibilities. But I’m not sure the ‘consequences and responsibilities’ accompanying free speech are those she’s invoking.
What Free Speech Is
We are all born into some sort of society. That society will include certain rights, and entail certain responsibilities. Freedom of speech is a declared right in both the US and UK as well as a fundamental tenet of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, is the fundamental right of individuals to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” AND “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
It does go on to state the exercise of this freedom carries duties and responsibilities and therefore may be subject to certain restrictions.
This does not mean freedom of expression is absolute, and some common limitations would be slander, libel, obscenity, porn, sedition, incitement, classified information, copyright violations, trade secrets, right to privacy, dignity, public security and perjury. Justifications for such include the John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle.
The idea of an offense principle is also sometimes claimed in the justification of speech limitations- aiming to place restrictions on expressions deemed offensive to society.
Freedom of speech is also usually seen as a negative right, meaning while the government has legal obligation to take no action against various expressions, it likewise has no legal obligation to help anyone publish their views, and no one is required to listen to, agree with, or acknowledge any particular view.
Of interest as well is that while the right is framed as the right of a speaker, the real aim is the audience, or listeners. We don’t worry about saying what we want to nobody. The point is that speakers must be free to speak so that listeners can hear and evaluate what is said, and society can ultimately find the truth. If citizens are to decide how to respond to public issues, they have to be able to hear what different sides have to say.
Why Free Speech Is Important
The basis for this is the fundamental relationship to democracy. A democracy, in which the people decide laws for themselves, requires the free flow of information and ideas. For this ideal to actualize, the people need access to ideas. Free speech isn’t ultimately about human freedom to say whatever they want, it is ultimately the mechanism that allows that necessary free flow of ideas.
John Stuart Mill argued that without human freedom there can be no progress in science, law, or politics, which required free discussion of opinion. His On Liberty became the classic defense of the right to freedom of expression. He argued that truth drives out falsity, therefore, the free expression of ideas, true or false, should not be feared. Truth is not stable or fixed, but evolves with time. Much of what we once considered to be true has turned out false. Therefore, views should not be prohibited for their apparent falsity. Furthermore, Mill argued that an opinion carries intrinsic value only to the owner of that opinion, thus silencing the expression of that opinion is an injustice to a basic human right.
Noam Chomsky said:
If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Dictators such as Stalin and Hitler were in favor of freedom of speech for views that liked only. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
Consequences and Responsibilities of Free Speech
When someone says that free speech comes with consequences and responsibility? What exactly do they mean? Of course expressing views publicly comes with consequences, since basically everything we do comes with consequences. But is our twitter-ban-defender saying the consequences might be getting banned? And that’s OK?
Her use of the qualifier “if those views are vile”, doesn’t seem to acknowledge that what constitutes ‘vile’ can not only vary, but be diametrically opposed. The left may consider views expressed by the right to be vile and hateful, which would therefore qualify them as ineligible for free expression. But the right would at the same time consider the views expressed by the left to be vile and hateful, and likewise ineligible for protection. The issue is: who gets to determine what is vile?
What always happened in the past was that the ones in power decided what would be considered vile, and used that to shut down expression of what they didn’t like. THIS is the very reason we have free speech, to keep those that consider saying such a thing ‘vile’ from shutting it down. It’s why it is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The usual wrinkle I hear on this is that this is certainly applicable to governments, but not private companies and platforms like Twitter, et al. Therefore, it’s ok if twitter bans expressions it doesn’t like.
In this, I tend to agree. No platform is obligated to publish content. If it becomes clear that a platform doesn’t like certain views, then it seems to me that those with those views will likely have to find another platform to publish them on.
Of course this HAS happened, with those that don’t like those views trying to shut down the alternative platforms as well.
But it should be noted that the current social media platforms HAVE become the public platforms utilized by nearly everyone. Private companies having public platforms in their control, and allowing the flow of only certain types of information they like and want, is a different mechanism than it was possible to imagine centuries ago.
I assume that the same people saying it’s ok for “vile” voices to be silenced on whatever platform would probably be the first to scream “Censorship!” if the tables were turned and their ideas were being shut down on a platform. We all like to pretend like we’re operating on principle, when it’s usually just self-interest.
Maybe the Rawlsian justice method should be applied: let the left define the rules, and then let the right apply them. Or let the right define the rules, and the left gets to apply them.
Apparently, for our twitter-ban-defender, the consequences would be banning if the speech doesn’t line up with whatever is preferred, in which case it isn’t a freedom. And the “responsibilities"…… what responsibilities would she be referring to in this instance? Did the original speech violate one of the exemptions from free speech? Or did it violate one of her personal exemptions, in other words: speech should be banned if I don’t like it!
This thinking means free speech is allowed only when it conforms to what those in power like.
Attempts to shut down opposing views in public platforms are misguided. The whole point of the right is the free flow of information. Calling opposing views vile as justification for them to be excluded are missing the entire point of why we have this right in the first place, and the fundamental role it plays in how we discover the truth.