Freedom of Speech...To a Point?
Apparently the Would-Be Overlords Know Better 🤷♀️
Yesterday I worked at a public fair in a beautiful park in small-town Illinois. The lovely event I was working at occupied a significant amount of space in the park, but left much of the greenery and attractions untouched. Outside of the event- about 60 or so yards away- a man had set up a station with loudspeakers and a microphone, over which he was sharing excerpts from the Bible and doing what he could to evangelize those who were within earshot. When people stopped to talk to him he would replace his live speaking with recorded tapes, to continue the broadcast while he spoke to those who came to speak to him.
At one point, my coworker and I were toting equipment between our cars which placed us closer to the evangelizing man. A different man walked past us and commented, “I can’t believe they’re letting him do that here.”
My coworker responded with a light shrug and a smile, “Freedom of speech,” to which the man replied, “To a point.”
Excuse me?
To a point?
And just who is so omniscient as to receive the responsibility for deciding where that point is and what the decision ought to be based on, in a public space?
Yesterday’s experience foreshadowed an article I came across this morning, detailing the arrest of Telegram cofounder and CEO, Pavel Durov. I was unable to find the article that originally enlightened me about this arrest, but have linked a comparable article below ⬇️
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-reportedly-arrested-at-paris-airport-5712557
From the above article, “BFM, another French outlet, and TF1 reported that Durov, who has dual French and United Arab Emirates citizenship, was arrested as part of a preliminary police investigation into allowing possible criminality due to a lack of moderators on Telegram and a lack of cooperation with police.”
Again, from the above article, “Telegram’s website says it ‘is committed to protecting user privacy and human rights such as freedom of speech and assembly.’”
Andrew Doyle, “writer, broadcaster and satirist” (according to his Substack profile), has extensively covered the recent upendings of free speech in the UK.
Here is an excerpt from the article that follows, by Doyle:
“In the meantime, we need to be vigilant. The current Labour government comprises of culture warriors who mistrust freedom of speech and will take any opportunity to impose restrictions. Whereas many perpetrators of violence have rightly been arrested and prosecuted, increasingly we are seeing police knocking on doors for social media posts that contain ‘disinformation’ or the potential to ‘stir up hatred.’
Words and violence are being casually conflated, and this is where the real danger begins.”
<see this point in the article below for a video recording of a UK police officer arresting a man for a social media post>
(the article continues)
“Consider what happened after the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess in October 2021. Rather than debate how best to tackle the growing problem of Islamist terror, MPs instead used this atrocity as a springboard from which to launch a campaign for further online censorship. Unpleasant tweets had nothing to do with this murder, and yet the actual problem - violent religious extremism - was completely overlooked. This was political opportunism disguised as compassion.
In situations of this kind, it is always best to consider how short-term solutions can jeopardize our long-term goals. Virtually all of us are disturbed when we read social media posts that display animosity towards minority ethnic groups, but empowering the state to set the limits of permissible thought and speech is an even greater danger. We are right to vehemently criticise the man who posted the phrase ‘Filthy bastards’ on Facebook along with emojis of a gun and an ethnic minority person, but we are also right to express concern that he has been jailed for 12 weeks. Defending free speech means defending the rights of those we find most abhorrent. There are larger principles at stake. Once a precedent has been set that enables the government to control the speech of its citizens, the pathway for future tyranny has been cleared.
This is why we should also be troubled that Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has said that police officers are ‘scouring social media’ for anyone sharing details of the riots that might ‘incite racial hatred.’ He has claimed that he will even seek extradition of offending social media influencers from overseas, saying that they ‘must know they are not safe and there is nowhere to hide.’
These are not merely idle threats. Police in Cheshire have arrested a woman for sharing misinformation about the perpetrator of the horrific stabbing of children in Southport, wrongly identified in this case as a Muslim asylum seeker. It goes without saying that anyone deliberately sharing false information to promote their own cause or ideology deserves nothing but contempt. But once we accept that misinformation is sufficient to warrant prosecution, where does that end?”
Perhaps the man I interacted with briefly yesterday, the one who found the public evangelizing by the Christian man unbelievable, doesn’t understand this inherent aspect of free speech ⬇️
“Defending free speech means defending the rights of those we find most abhorrent.”
Or perhaps he does understand this aspect, perhaps many of the humans who are currently pro-censorship in one form or another understand — and they don’t understand the alternatives that will manifest if we refuse to hold that line.
One more story from yesterday.
Before I arrived at the event where the man was evangelizing, I worked at a different event organized by a political group I had never heard of, one I did not end up having much of a pallet for. The distaste for the group was not obvious from the offset, but developed as members of the group told me about the organization, their roles, how they came to be members, and what position I could play if I chose to join them.
One member and I engaged in discussion for 30 minutes, maybe more, as she told me about the group, shared her experiences, and invited me to join; we mutually struggled through the tension that arose as I did my best to kindly express my alternative perspectives on very complicated topics.
This was one of the most rewarding conversations I’ve experienced lately, but not because it was rewarding during, or even in the immediate aftermath. In fact, it was quite uncomfortable as I balanced navigating my internal reactivity with my desire to be authentic, present, and kind…and also not get kicked out of the event.
Later in the day though, especially after experiencing the evangelical and the free speech “to a point” man, I realized that I had been gifted one of the many transformative experiences that are fostered in a society with freedom of speech — the gift of respectful disagreement, confrontation, and debate. And I imagine there was some related wisdom in those who declared freedom of speech as an inalienable right when founding the United States of America, that they understood that the opportunity to confront our disagreements is crucial on the road to collaboration and connection. Furthermore, the ability to have such conversations without fear of repercussion is a gift many have completely taken for granted in our society — likely because they have forgotten what we would be without it and possibly because they don’t take advantage of it.
These confrontations, conversations about differences in perspective, are critical to our expanding collective consciousness, as well as our growth as individuals. Who best to challenge us to grow than someone who disagrees with us on one, or many, topics?
While some level of perspective will always be subjective, we can at least come to the table with differing points of view to discuss and debate based on objective facts, historical records, statistical trends, and common ideals. It is, of course, through these conversations that we sand the edges of what we consider to be factual at a collective level. And this is done through discussion, debate, and presenting evidence, not censorship, emotional manipulation, and the creation of a moral hierarchy.
What will we gain from allowing a person, group of people, or ideology to determine “a point” at which freedom of speech ends and censorship begins?
Temporarily? We might gain a sense that something has been accomplished that will prevent atrocities. We might also gain a sense of moral high ground. A sense of security might be found.
Over-time? We gain a state that is no longer in the hands of the people. This state runs off ideology, the throws of human passion, and the silent agreement of complacent, fearful, and ignorant citizens.
When things feel overly complicated a good path forward is usually getting “back to the basics.” For those who feel they, or their overlords, know better than history — try expanding your knowledge of history and philosophy as well as your emotional awareness practice and sense of inner security. Study not only the past 100 or 1,000 years but the past 10,0000 and 100,000. Understanding the trajectory of humans over such a ‘long’ time helps depersonalize many of the experiences that we tend to get so emotionally wrapped up in. This understanding also helps make concrete the great benefits, blessings, luck that we have in modern times.
Speaking from personal experience, I was much more prone to falling for ideologies before expanding my knowledge base. I’m sure that in the future I will let go of ideologies I ignorantly hold onto now, through the same means.
For those who trust in absolute freedom of speech as a fundamental tenant of a free society, consider what you might do to take action to see that your rights are upheld.