Declaration of Reasoning: On Freedom of Speech

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Declaration of Reasoning: On Freedom of Speech
Originally Published: Dec-2023
Edited: Dec-2023

By Andrew Samaras

It is a shame that the concept of freedom of speech is so often reduced to a mere term, casually bandied about by political partisans, commentators, and social media philosophers when it suits their purposes. Corporations wade into the muddy waters of 1^st amendment discourse if it can be used as part of a marketing gimmick or promotes a narrative from which they may profit. Conversations on public forums and even among friends where freedom of speech comes up have somehow become divisive and controversial. This issue is becoming increasingly entangled with other major issues facing society, such as AI, social media, and upcoming elections, and with our physical realities and human interactions being augmented by virtual ones, it is our responsibility, now as much as ever, to navigate the noise and be thoughtful about our freedoms and values.

Clouding the issues, are those who raise the discussion of freedom of speech in bad faith, leveling it as a charge against rivals to stir up controversy or as part of a sales pitch for someone’s agenda. The state of conversation becomes a climate of destructive noise, and lack of clarity of what we mean by freedom of speech causes the subject to be inflammatory. Precision and transparency pave the pathway to fruitful conversation. And while historians, courts, and legal scholars debate what the founders meant by the first amendment to answer the legal questions about it, the more vital, and more interesting question that the public must attempt to answer for ourselves is the values question. One must define the terms and seek to understand what definition of that value they are inducting into their personal philosophies. We must know what we mean when we say freedom of speech and what we expect it to mean when we hear it from others. Furthermore, we must demand the same clarity from governments, figures, and institutions who often invoke the phrase frivolously, or we risk having the terms defined for us and the answers imposed upon our society.

Before defining the terms, it is useful to highlight what should be common ground no matter what one’s views are on recent pandemics, laptop stories, or high-profile cancellations and apologies under duress. It should be painfully obvious to anyone actively exercising their own freedom of speech, that not having it is inferior to having it. There are states and societies that do not have the right to free speech enshrined in a constitution, where people cannot decide for themselves what they would hear or what information they can seek out. The languishing of these people under tyranny bares out the critical need for this basic human right. The restriction of freedom of speech is a portal to tyranny, and there is therefore common cause to be careful and deliberate about this conversation and not to trivialize it.

The first question we must answer in pursuit of common understanding is: what is meant by freedom? Surely, it does not just mean the free will to speak, because that’s something that no one can take away. If they took our tongues, they still could not thwart our freedom of thought. So what freedom is being referred to? Is it freedom from being criticized? From intimidation for one’s views? Does it include protections against de-platforming and so-called cancellation? Constitutionally, freedom means the freedom from legal consequence, but we cannot simply mean the freedom from consequence for one’s speech, because that right cuts both ways. My freedom to say whatever is on my mind is your freedom to disagree, argue, or even shout me down. That is both the rightful and appropriate consequence for reprehensible speech. What we must instead mean is the freedom from curation or censorship—to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, that no one should decide for us what we have the right to hear in our pursuit of the truth. We must therefore adopt the broadest definition of freedom. Although perhaps not as a legal matter, as a matter of principle this should include the freedom from de-platforming and dis-amplification. Freedom of speech, not restriction of it, progresses the pursuit of a common reality and exposes the truth.

A narrower definition of speech is appropriate, however, as the freedom of protest and of assembly are discrete from the freedom of speech. The words that arouse people to protest did not, with aching feet, stand for days on strike. Words cannot smash storefront windows. The hateful speaker who motivates people to commit vile deeds, his words are immoral, and yet distinct from the actions taken by his audience, just as the art teacher who inspires you does not create the work of your hands. Speech is not violence, and neither is violence speech. Speech is speech. What you read in newspapers and books; what you hear on the radio and television; what you say to your family, and to your friends and followers—that is speech.

This begs the final question: should there be limitations to freedom of speech, and what would they be? As a matter of United States’ law, the answer is yes, there are, though the boundaries are continuously being redrawn. But what about as a matter of principle? Should hate speech or calls for violence be protected? Ought the right to lie be safeguarded equally with the one to create poetry, inspired writing, or to tell the truth? Good faith debate can be had on these difficult questions, and there may not be one correct answer to them. To invoke Sam Harris’ Moral Landscape, there may indeed be many peaks and valleys as to how society should approach this value and how individuals should exemplify it. The answers I offer are rooted in my own personal philosophy, and in some I am less assured than others, but it is important to always err on the side of promoting, not restricting this freedom.

First of all, most-assuredly yes, there are times when it is not only appropriate, but incumbent upon the individual to sacrifice their innate right to free speech at the altar of society. There is speech that is so egregious, manipulative, and evil that it renders social cohesion an impossibility. There are bold-faced lies so divisive, and trumpeted from such high platforms, as to choke out the sweet whisper of the truth. Even here, though, the matter is of volume, not content. There should be no limit to what one may say privately to another who wants to hear it. The real concern is abuse of platform and reach. These lines must be drawn case by case, but to take just a few examples, consider hate speech, calls for violence, and big lies.

Hate speech, which includes things like threats, calls for genocide, and explicit support of terrorism, is so corrosive to society that it ought to be dis-amplified and in many cases censored. Incitement to violence is similarly damaging, especially when it comes from sources such as political leaders and people of power that cannot be easily ignored. Apparently convincing lies, that inhibit a collaborative reality and lead swaths of people astray from facts, are intolerable to a society. In most cases, these limitations do not apply, however, and these terms cannot be allowed to become umbrella terms to encompass disagreeable speech. which must always be protected.

In short, my position is this: It is self-evident that there is no alternative to the value of freedom of speech in protecting individual rights and averting subjugation under tyranny and totalitarianism. The evidence for this fact is confirmed by the negative—authoritarians and despots who continuously assail this freedom, as they have throughout history, and the oppressive societies that they create. Freedom of speech should therefore be considered sacrosanct, not because it is an engrained practice or because it was passed down by political prophets, but because no person has a monopoly on truth. Truth can only be exposed through thoroughly researched and reasoned discourse, conversation, and debate, without limitation on what opinions can be shared and what information can be exposed. While no infringement can be allowed on this fundamental individual liberty, there are both moral and legal limits to what can be said without forfeiting one’s protections against censorship. There are rare times when an intolerable friction exists between individual liberties and other principles, and sometimes other values, such as social cohesion and the pursuit of truth, have to win out. In a perfect world, these limitations would be irrelevant; but, in reality, there must be protections against abuse and bad-faith if society is to survive.

My position is derived from my internal philosophy of respecting equally each person’s individual human dignity, and it is the guiding principle for my philosophical reasoning through freedom of speech as it pertains to modern societal contexts. It hinges on the equal application of any standard to everyone, regardless of status or power. I submit my position for your consideration, dear reader, so that you may know my mind and in the hope that, even if you do not agree on my conclusions, my thoughts may help sharpen your own position as you reason through this most important of concepts. I hope, whoever you are, that you exercise your own freedom of speech in a way that honors yourself and the truth of reality. As the primacy of this conversation compounds, I hope that, wherever you may be, that you demand intellectual clarity from yourself and from others—the survival of society depends on it.