How Does the Freedom of Speech Become a Threat to Society?

The concept of freedom of speech is the product of various strands of thought developed throughout many centuries. As a common principle, it emerged in late 6th century BC, in ancient Greece. And in terms of the legal system, the cornerstone of it’s application is Magna Carta from 1215. While it’s specifical affirmation as an inalienable right came during the French Revolution in 1789. 

If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind… I should say to you, “Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you.”

Socrates (speaks to jury at his trial) 399. BC

Freedom of speech today is widely recognized as a normative rule by international, national, and regional standards. Considered to be inalienable human right by the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. It is regulated by national legal systems, and as such deeply embedded in social fiber of modern societies.

The right to freedom of speech and expression has long history, controversial present, and unpredictable future. It continually evolves in front of our eyes, as the “information age” challenges its core foundations. On the information battlefield, the culture itself is at stake. 

The words of Erasmus of Rotterdam from 1516, “in a free state, tongues too should be free”, evoke naive nostalgia today, and rightfully so, because that freedom is far from ever being recognized as absolute. All rights and freedoms cary duties and responsibilities, so expressing one’s truth ought to be subject to boundaries. Some of the limitations imposed on freedom of expression are prohibition of defamatory statements, obscenity, harmful and offensive content, intellectual property, right to privacy,… and the list goes on.

Since freedom of speech is multi-faceted right, in order to explore it’s most recent implications, I’ll be following it’s three distinct aspects as defined by John Milton (1608-1674):

• the right to seek information and ideas;
• the right to receive information and ideas;
• the right to convey information and ideas.

Freedom to Seek Information and Ideas
Who controls the narrative?

Individual agency is not to be questioned. No matter what, you are to be in charge of your personal destiny. The ability to make one’s own decisions is the fundamental ideal of justice. 

The proper informational assessment and decision making depends on high fidelity of sensory information received from our environment. To exist in everyday life, means making necessary adjustments based on available information. Thus, each and every action requires certain preparedness. 

To be prepared means to be in control of the narrative, and it always starts with asking the right questions.

Freedom to Receive Information and Ideas
What is Allowed?

If you start with false premises, the probability of successful outcome becomes highly improbable. Which is why the truth is the most valuable commodity. But, in the complex world we inhabit, seeking truthful answers can be not only time-consuming, but mentally and emotionally demanding. By delegating the task to experts in areas we aim to understand, truth seeking becomes less taxing and more resourceful. 

Once earned credibility raises expectations placed on the source of information. Being a trusted, public figure means being exposed to higher scrutiny and criticism including limited right to be forgiven for mistakes.
But our perennial proclivity for truth seeking can serve as a proof that there are no so many hard truths in the world as we would like to believe. Nobody is immune to being wrong at times, and should be allowed to be so.

The problem with “canceling” people for making claims or expressing unpopular opinions, is that no man is an island. The individual always holds a certain role in society, and acts as a representative of particular accreditation. In the aftermath of being cancelled, the loss of personal integrity tends to cause reputational harm to the social structures they personify, and gradual dissipation of trust towards institutions represented by the said individual. 

When trust in institutions is broken, only thing that remains is the right of the strongest – where universal freedom becomes just a secondary concern.

Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favour of free speech, then you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

Noam Chomsky, “Manufacturing Consent”

Freedom to Transmit Information and Ideas
Why Numbers Matter?

After the information is seeked and received, and preferably imprinted with personal viewpoints, it naturally progresses towards expression. Cognitive task of formulating our own opinions is a positive feedback loop in itself that further facilitates thinking and problem solving capacities. 

But, let’s suppose that in the process of gathering information, you’ve witnessed your favourite news account being suspended, or public figure you’ve trusted became object of an organized smear campaign, or the reality you experience does not align with widely distributed narratives.

No surprise you’ll start to wonder whether the data that now informs your future is flawed.

You can either shut down the enquiry and mind some other business (silence is compliance).
Or, if stakes are high, you’re naturally inclined to seek a refuge in a closed systems where shared beliefs can eventually become reinforced and amplified.

And this is where numbers start to play the crucial role. Aside from revealing the trends, growing numbers in the “wrong” places have always been perceived as a threat to “establishment”.
In times of emergency, words become violence.

He who destroys a good book, kills reason itself.

John Milton, “Areopagitica”

Regardless of whether censorship is self-imposed or not, freedom to impart falls short. Where some levels of polarization have already been established, censorship leads to further segregation. Highly polarised societies are incubators of public outrage with dangerous tendencies towards dismantling overall social hierarchy. 

In age when information becomes a weapon, one thing is certain: it will eventually backfire.