Questions For Absolute Defenders Of “Free Speech”

A quest to understand other points of view and potentially arrive at an answer.

Introduction

In recent years Western organisations of all kinds have come under fire for banning actors on all sides of the political spectrum (albeit it seems mainly on the extreme right). For example, The Oxford Union were criticised for hosting Steve Bannon, Apple were criticised for banning Alex Jones, and Cloudfare were criticised for banning the Daily Stormer.

Importantly, these high profile cases involve no state action (although such private action is inevitably bleeding into the public sphere). For right or wrong reasons, it seems private organisations are taking the issue of “free-speech” into their own hands. Working in technology, I can’t help but think if the companies I support are being morally correct in their stance or not: this is part of an attempt to answer this question.

My gut reaction is that there are limits to free speech, however I also cannot help but have sympathy with Mill’s famous harm principle:

“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”.

Upon pondering this principle, I am caught in an almost immediate dilemma when considering a classic counter-argument to such a point where falsely shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre is almost definitely going to lead to trampling and subsequent injury.

On one extreme of this argument there is this super strict rulebook of what people in society can and can’t say. On the other, there is Mill’s extreme of anything goes. In the middle, there are such policies as:

• The Christchurch Call: A set of policies most social media companies have signed that restricts the spread of violent terrorist content.
• The Chicago Principles: A university document recommending “The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the University.”
• Reddit Content Policy: stating that the platform will not only ban content that is “illegal” but it will also take it’s own liberties in regards to banning content that is “involuntary pornography” and/or “Impersonates someone in a misleading or deceptive manner.”
• UK Law Against Hate Speech: where various laws over time have been created, which amongst others, make it illegal to “stir up racial hatred” (Public Order Act 1986)

Currently, I believe society exists in this grey area in the middle, with the aforementioned doing some degree of guiding us.

However, I am coming across a great many people who seem to argue that in fact there should never be limits to free speech at all. This post is a message to them, please reply to me and let me know why you think this.

Perhaps a way to answer, and educate me, is via answering my following questions.

The Questions

1. Is it free speech without accountability? For example an anonymous post on a chat room, an anonymous letter through someones door, or an anonymous shout of “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre.

• If no, then surely an admission of some kind of limitation of speech is in order?
• If yes, if a loved one were to get injured (or even nearly so) in the aforementioned theatre example, wouldn’t you want some law in place to stop such a thing potentially happening in the future?

2. Do all people have the ability to discuss on an equal footing?

• If no, then surely this supports some degree of protection of minorities and limitations of at least hate speech right?
• If yes, isn’t this disregarding educational, financial and health disabilities inherent in society?

3. Is it free speech for a politician to lie in a campaign?

• If yes, how do we stop those with inherent power imbalances mis-leading the majority of the population?
• If no, then surely this is a limitation on free speech right?

Rules Of Engagement

1. A desire to reach a mutual understanding with myself. However unlikely, if you’re not interested in having your mind changed simply go elsewhere.
2. A degree of rational debate. Although vaguely defined, I’m uninterested in streams rhetoric and inconsistent points. I might respond, but I do appreciate a degree of effort in your arguments.
3. Respond on Medium, in the below comments section.