Finding Good Will in a World Obsessed with Free Speech

Written by Meg Thomas

Graphics by Maggie Zeng

‘Freedom of Speech’ is a phrase that makes people see red.

Some are fervent defenders of the virtue. Others argue free speech has never been possible. Whether you vote red or blue, the concept of 'free speech’ rallies all kinds of politically charged emotions. With so many definitions floating around we have to ask ourselves - what does free speech mean in a postmodern world?

From a young age, nearly every American child understands that the US is “built on liberty”. They learn it from the eagle on their dollars. They hear it in the pledge of allegiance each morning, and all it takes is one Government class to understand that the first amendment to the constitution states that ‘Congress shall make no law (..) abridging freedom of speech’. So, it's fundamental that - on  the surface - America is founded on more “liberal” ideas, like freedom of speech, assembly and religion. 

However, with the rise of ‘anti woke media’ freedom of expression seems to be dying out. In contemporary America, freedom of speech protects hateful rhetoric. Why does it not protect freedom of expression?

In a world with so many polarizing views, there can be no freedom of speech. It is too ignorant, and simply unkind to go talking ‘as you please’ in such a deeply unequal world. The principle of freedom of speech was born in a time where prejudice and oppression were more commonplace. We must come to learn that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. We cannot continue to allow hate-speech under the guise of freedom of speech. 

I’ll ask the question again - what does freedom of speech actually mean?

Many say they’re entitled to ‘freedom of speech’ when what they really want is  ‘freedom to hate’. Often, advocates of freedom of speech are the ones who use it to funnel hatred into public discourse. 

We can see this within media star Andrew Tate, who is constantly talking about how the ‘Matrix’ is silencing him. He waves the freedom of speech flag to negate himself of any offense or wrongdoing.Yet –  in reality –  his messages and rhetoric has often proven harmful. Since Tate’s rise to fame, the BBC has reported a change in attitude amongst young children. For instance, using words like ‘rape’ without truly understanding the depth of it. In fact, a teacher in the article reported that young boys have said they would support Tate regardless of whether he is prosecuted of sex trafficking. How have we gotten to a point where speaking with such a volatile nature is okay? Why do pundits like Tate get to speak with such a lack of respect and face little to no consequence in terms of social stigma, only gaining more status for their spiteful speeches. Is this what freedom of speech protects? If so, we have to question the credibility of the value of freedom of speech. 

There is another cruelty that is presented to us as supposed freedom of speech - when it is really the freedom to silence minority voices. There is a regressive streak occurring in American society, a moral panic surrounding queerness. This is the flip side of a freedom-of-speech obsessed society: it only applies when the majority's agenda is protected. As seen by the fact that there has been a rapid rise in the banning of books in American schools - something that should be frowned upon in a liberal democracy. For instance, in 2022 the most frequently banned book was ‘GenderQueer: a Memoir’ by Maia Kobabe. The book recounts a discovery of identity. - How far will  censorship go? If we wander the dark trail of banning books talking about autonomy, or identity, how long is it until children lack access to books talking about sexual health and puberty? 

Continually we see free speech only applying to the majority, the generosity is not extended towards minorities like queer people. In a society where governments are quick to ban books that don't align with their ideology, it is clear freedom of speech is a privilege maintained for those in power. The dominant ideology in American society is one that preserves these archaic systems, like heteronormativity. 

Similarly in the UK, there was controversy sparked following Sam Smith's music video “I’m Not Here to Make Friends.” Pundits in the UK created discourse surrounding age restrictions in music videos, and began a discussion about sex in the music industry. Yet there’s no issue with the decades of sexual iconography from heterosexual musicians. Once again, freedom of speech is not used to have healthy discussions and create consensus. It is used to promote hatred. It is used to as an excuse to shut down anything that a person doesn't agree with.  In fact, Smith has been recorded recalling being verbally abused in the street due to their imagery and gender identity. It brings us back to the point of, is freedom of speech a positive pillar for a society to be built on if these are the events it creates? What do people gain from such bitterness? 

What is the lesson to be learnt from all of this? Maybe it’s that people and social media should not be left to their own devices, or maybe it's something more thought provoking. 

When we see a message that is harmful - such as Tate’s - we need to make sure those who are suppressed by it see justice. This does not mean point scoring in the form of argument. The productive course of action would be  to educate – as long as people are willing to learn. . Ask where the ideology comes from.  What kind of media does that person consume? What views do their peers hold? We must help people see there is little to be gained from hatred. 

People will take the excuse of freedom of speech and run a mile with it, they will use it to be hateful and maliciously target those who they personally dislike. So, I propose a radical solution - maybe freedom of speech was never that much of a good idea to begin with. 

As we’ve seen, a society that values freedom of speech as a key virtue - such as America - becomes a country in which people believe they can speak without consequence. They can be as bigoted and cruel as they like, and this is protected by their rights.  No one is suggesting mass censorship , but it is clear that free speech has been hijacked by those who want to push a hateful agenda. There is nothing liberating about pundits being allowed to promote the abuse of women, nothing freeing about a majority using their freedoms to shut down minority media and nothing tolerant about oppressing people for the sake of not agreeing with their art. If this bitter trend continues, we will end up with a society that does not consider other people at all. 

Perhaps it is wise we hold our tongues and avoid being mean spirited.  Maybe, next time we see something we don't like (that isn't harmful) we should just turn our backs, take a deep breath and carry on with our day.