How Free Should Free Speech Be?

Bottom line up front: Free speech cannot be a loner; it always needs to be accompanied by, and backed by, responsible, preferably rational, thoughts.

Conceptually, free speech is a great idea and when it comes to choosing between free and non-free speech, there is no question that the former is qualitatively better. It is defensible.

The thing about conceptual understanding is that it tucks away in the back of the mind all measurable indicators, and assumes that those same indicators are what others have in their minds as they relate to the concept. For example, when we think about compassion, or hate, we do not have to rehash in our heads all things that could exemplify those concepts; in our minds we “know” what they are. We have an understanding about those concepts that rely on the subjective and the quantitatively undefined. Our hope (even expectation) is that others, when they think about the same concepts, would have the same notion about them; our minds united in the vagueness of the undefined. If we ever had to, we would agree that, for example, compassion is seen in caring for a sick friend, and that hate is seen when you spew out bad and angry words against someone. It would not be the other way around; compassion would not be angry words at a sick friend, and hate would not be seen in lovingly tending to someone who is sick. However, if the conceptual understanding varies, we have, by definition, a conflict. This kind of conflict is generally unresolvable because the vagueness and the subjectivity require no substantiation; simply a defense.

It is only when we break down concepts to dimensions and measurable indicators that we can meaningfully work out a better understanding, and hopefully, the conflict.

For the sake of brevity, I will stay at the dimensional level today. Free speech has several dimensions. For example, free speech can be constructive in nature, or destructive. Additionally, it can refer to something that is generally held to be true (or, is factual), or it can make things up. I could go on, but let me limit myself to these dimensions for now.

Undefined, at the conceptual level, free speech theoretically allows us to say whatever we feel like saying, and whoever thinks otherwise is wrong. The question is: should we really be protecting the right to say whatever we please? In the privacy of our own minds, we do not have to (protect), but whatever we submit to the public arena, large or small, needs to be tempered and filtered through acceptable norms. And,of course, norms change.

To me, it makes better sense, and hope it makes good conceptual sense to you as well, that free speech that is constructive and that is factual is preferable to free speech that is destructive and based on the made up ideas. And, no, we cannot package destructive and made up ideas as art and hope that those that would otherwise not be acceptable suddenly becomes so (particularly if there is intentional malice directed towards groups in such art). Sure, there will be temporary entertainment for some, but no significant long term benefits in these kinds of endeavors. If any, the costs will be high and there are better alternatives. Most importantly, I trust graciousness more than I trust confrontation.

In recent times, I have often wondered why, a ‘blasphemous’ view towards religion is considered free thinking? And I am also bewildered why free thinking is being equated with the right to attack others without provocation?

If I have 'blasphemous' views towards women, would I not be called a misogynist, a chauvinist? If I have 'blasphemous' views towards other races, would I not be called racist? So, how and when did 'blasphemous' views towards religion become the right, or the acceptable, thing to do? This is more of a puzzle because religion is usually considered far more sensitive than other social characteristics.

There is a very close working relationship between free speech and free thinking; whatever we say needed to be processed by thoughts (regardless of qualitative value or depth). We may think all we want, but it is probably not a very good idea to say all we think in all arenas. After all, there is the question of acceptability, and acceptability comes with consequences. Acceptability is accompanied by the question of rationality.

Irrational thinking today seems rampant in unlikely quarters. We have seen people in highly responsible positions endorse so-called free thinking that is destructive and based on non-factual statements, but only when it serves a political purpose.

If there is only one lunatic in the crowd, the rest will tend to criticize, ridicule, and ostracize. When there is more than one lunatic in the mix, and, worse, those who fight one another to try and establish theirs as the right idea, the surviving winner’s idea is not automatically rational, it is still lunacy; it is only that the winning lunatic had the greater power to do harm.

Free speech is not free at all. It comes with a hefty price tag: responsibility.