Freedom of Speech

So far as I have been able to interpret things over the last 20 years, I think there are roughly two sides of the “what is acceptable free speech” spectrum.

On one side of extremes, there are people saying “If I’d like to shout hateful, racist things in public, I should be able to!”

On the opposite, equally extreme side, “People should, by law, be prohibited from using certain words or phrases and it be state supported.”

Here’s what I believe and perceive to be the truth about freedom of speech as a proud, pure-blooded American Libertarian:

Both sides are right, but not in the ways you may think.

The one extreme saying they should be able to say anything at all — including words perceived as abusive, hateful, racist, or vile — are… right. Freedom of speech needs to be entirely unbridled in nature. They are not saying they necessarily want or desire use of these words…What they are saying is that they want to have the ability to express their thoughts and opinions in a manner that is genuinely reflective of them as an individual, even if unpopular. The optionality to use a taboo word.

As for the other extreme, they’re also correct! However, suppression of speech should absolutely not be enforced by a government or state power through rule of law or state aggression such as police/military. Suppression of speech needs to be up to social contract. If someone uses what is perceived as a hateful word or phrase, society needs to enforce that this is not acceptable and could be perceived as provocation! The phrase “Talk shit, get hit” comes to mind.

In a truly free society, á la Libertarianism, if one wanted to create a haven where speech were regulated, this haven could exist within the larger society.

However, an overregulated society like we have, now, does not allow these sorts of things.

Hateful speech will always exist. It doesn’t matter if the government or state stops freedom of speech, truly malevolent people will circumvent it in new, novel ways.

What we can positively do is be mindful of our perception of the world. As I have said numerous times and will iterate ad nauseum — when people cannot control their emotions, they seek to control the behaviors of others. This is precisely the issue with free speech.

Instead of the individual working on themselves and strengthening and tempering their mind and perception, they insist on trying to place marionette strings about the hands and necks of those they disagree with.

Free speech must exist in a pure form and cannot be separated out, be made beholden to minutia of rules, or bear the burden of how others perceive what are “good words” or “bad words.” It must remain immutable and free of the alchemy of politicization attempting to transmute it into a guillotine against those who question power.

— — — — —
Author’s Comment:
I very seldom choose to write opinion pieces. Doubly rarely are they in the arena of what many would consider “politics.”
Personally, I wish all readers of this article to understand that I do not consider free speech to “belong” in the realms of politics, at all, but rather view it as fundamental.
I write very extensively on the subject of perception and how it falls to the individual to control their own perception.
Some samples: One, Two, Three, Four.

Enjoy, comment, and follow me for daily philosophical discussions!