Free speech, as long I agree with your words

Opinion

H. L. Mencken once said, “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” I think about this quote a lot these days. It is routinely applicable to our shifting political tides, whether it be the rejuvenated idea that we can simply drive the homeless out of sight until they are no longer an issue, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ridiculous solution to autism that he set the stage for months ago, as if science could be performed like Babe Ruth predicting he would hit a home run to right field.

Or perhaps you have seen people who describe themselves as “free speech absolutists.” Ostensibly, these people believe there should be no limits on speech whatsoever. That society is best served by people being allowed to say whatever they want all the time, and that responsibility lies with people to avoid speech they don’t wish to hear. Perhaps they cite some John Stuart Mill quote, who famously championed the idea that in the free exchange of ideas, the truth will always win out over a lie.

It almost sounds reasonable until you expose it to the barest bit of scrutiny.

For one thing, nobody actually believes that there should be no limits on speech. Even these supposed absolutists will admit to this if you pose the right hypothetical, like if they believe some prominent media figure like Joe Rogan should be allowed to go on his podcast with an audience of millions and engage in a campaign to convince the world that they personally are a pedophile and deserve to be stoned in the street.

All of a sudden the free speech absolutist understands that speech can be a violent action and slander laws are important.

So every reasonable person will acknowledge that there are limitations on acceptable speech. It all just comes down to the very complicated analysis of what is and isn’t acceptable, a calculus that there will always be radioactive disagreement about. And it is important that we have such dialogues, so that we can properly arrive at norms through which our discourse can be conducted in a manner that is as productive, direct and enlightened as possible.

Ironically though, the people who claim to be free speech absolutists are often those least interested in engaging in such conversation.

Take perhaps the most famous person who calls themselves an absolutist. Elon Musk went so far as to buy an entire social media platform, claiming that he was going to make it a bastion for free speech. Instead, what he has done is crack down on the speech that he doesn’t like, while granting leniency for what was previously considered hate speech on Twitter. Even the word “cisgender” is now considered a hateful slur if you try to post it, yet you don’t need to explore the platform long to be surprised what no longer qualifies as such.

The hypocrisy would be laughable if pointing out hypocrisy weren’t such an utter waste of time. Because Musk and many like him continue to defend speech promoting fascism, dehumanizing the marginalized or even calling for violence against their political opponents.

As long as the target is somebody they don’t like, they will continue to claim that the speech is defensible under the umbrella of free speech absolutism.

Here we see how absolutism is not a coherent belief, but a convenient thought-killing cliché that some employ to defend the indefensible.

But perhaps they will defend this the same way that John Stuart Mill did. They will contend that if these ideas are so bad or dangerous, why does the truth not simply win out over them through lively debate in the marketplace of ideas? But this is painfully naive.

We need only look back at the earlier hypothetical of the rich and powerful Joe Rogan deciding to go on a campaign of pedophilia accusations against some poor John Doe. Does the truth being on John’s side give him a chance against such an effective propaganda machine?

And beyond the imbalance of power in competing messages, we must also return to the truth spoken by Mencken. People love simple answers that confirm their biases.

To claim that the truth will inherently win out is to claim that humanity loves difficult and complicated answers over comforting lies, a thing that history does not bear out. We have built entire civilizations and committed mass murder around comforting mythologies.

Even in the contemporary, we see it in the sensational tendencies of our online algorithms, where truth has a difficult time rising to the top. And in traditional media, we see splashy misreporting all over the front page, while the corrections are relegated to a blurb on page nine the following week. All through history, people have always been more interested in answers that are clear, simple and wrong.

Blame for this can hardly be thrust on the individual, since we are by no means afforded the time or resources to properly educate ourselves against the disinformation we are bombarded with. But the least we can do is resist thought-killing cliches like free speech absolutism. So when somebody defends an article of speech simply by claiming a fundamental right to speak it, do not let them off so easy.

Demand that they defend the speech itself. Because that is what they are tacitly doing, and what we are complicit in allowing.

Alex Passey is a Winnipeg writer.