To Be or Not To Be Free: Who Really Has The Right To Freedom of Speech?
The concept of the First Amendment is actually more complicated and complex in theory than it is in practice. Time and time again from public speeches, protests, and even today through social media, some people are penalized for speaking their mind while others seem to be disregarded for their opinions. In reality, freedom of speech in the US is an illusion. People seem to believe they can speak their mind because they are socialized into the idea that the first amendment protects their ability to express themselves freely.
Julia Serrano explains this phenomenon perfectly. Serrano discusses the limitations of the first amendment and how they contradict with the entire idea of being able to practice free speech. The first amendment “guarantees” our right to freedom of speech under certain circumstances, those being that we do not have the right to practice free speech everywhere, whenever we wish to, with whomever we want, we are not protected from being criticized on what we say, certain ideas and beliefs are not allowed to be said, etc. Several limitations exist in the first amendment, therefore, the whole notion of freedom of speech can be questioned.
This notion is further complicated when we examine Michel Foucault’s article, The Meaning and Evolution of the Word Parrhesia. Foucault explains what it means to have parrhesia and to be a parrhesiazomai, in other words, what it means to have free speech and actually use parrhesia, to speak the truth. Foucault further details the characteristics that define a parrhesiazomai. To be a true parrhesiazomai, one must be frank, truthful, risky or dangerous, be open to criticism as well as be critical, and believe that it is a duty to use parrhesiatic speech.
“To be frank”
For a parrhesiazomai to be frank, one must speak of everything that is one his/her mind. To speak one’s mind, the speaker must speak of only their opinion, their own thoughts, and what they actually believe in. The speaker must be clear and concise with language choice. The language cannot be complicated with metaphors, satire, sarcasm, etc. It must be straight to the point and non-academic, this is to ensure that everyone who is listening is able to understand because there is a relationship between the speaker and what he says. This also ensures that the speaker not be speaking in a place of power.
“To be truthful”
To be truthful, the parrhesiazomai must believe that what he/she speaks of is actually the truth. In order for this to occur, the parrhesiazomai must possess moral qualities, which will enable the speaker to be truthful and sincere. The speaker must obtain positive parrhesia rather than pejorative parrhesia, because pejorative is viewed as a negative association. In other words, positive parrhesia is speaking only one’s opinions and beliefs, which in turn is the truth coming from the parrhesiazomai. Whereas pejorative parrhesia is not good for the country because it is a form of chit-chatting and anyone can perform pejorative parrhesia because it consists of speaking what is on the mind without quantification.
“To be risky”
The parrhesiazomai is risky because there is a danger associated with telling the truth. The danger comes with the speaker speaking of their opinion, which might not be what others believe to be true. The speaker might say different things than what the majority believes, therefore, in speaking their truth, the parrhesiazomai is taking many risks. The parrhesiazomai takes risks of relationships, risks of status, and risks of life when speaking parrhesia.
“To be open to criticism and to be critical”
Because the parrhesiazomai is speaking the truth, the speaker must be willing to endure criticism of others, as the parrhesiazomai’s truth will not always be the truth to those listening. The parrhesiazomai also must be critical in what others believe to be true because the parrhesiazomai is in a position of inferiority since the speaker is speaking at an equal level to those who are listening, the speaker must be critical in oneself.
“To believe that obtaining parrhesia is a duty”
For the parrhesiazomai to believe that parrhesia is a duty, the parrhesiazomai speaks the truth because it is of one’s own moral. In other words, the speaker speaks parrhesia not by force, but by choice. The speaker is not obliged to speak one’s own truth but does so because of a sense of fulfillment, to one’s self or to others.
In Foucault’s article, there exist several limitations as well. Beginning with the characteristic that the parrhesiatic speaker must be frank, to use non-academic language, be clear, concise, and speak one’s opinion. If this is true, then no single person can actually acquire freedom of speech. In a larger sense, it is almost impossible to solely speak one’s own opinion because ideas build up based on other ideas. As for being clear and concise in a non-academic way, it is almost impossible to get one’s opinion across without using some form of academic language or reference. Further examining the characteristic of truthfulness in the parrhesiazomai, the idea that in order to be truthful, the speaker must possess moral qualities, can be further questioned as to who determines who is moral and who is not. It is also important to take into consideration that a parrhesiazomai can only be a citizen and morality is essentially embedded in citizenship. During the time in which parrhesiatic speech was a growing idea, women were not yet considered as citizens, and therefore given no recognition as to possess moral qualities of able to obtain parrhesiatic speech. Therefore, this undermines the rest of the characteristic of the parrhesiazomai because if no one can truly be frank, truthfulness and morality are not quantifiable, and women are not considered to ever be a parrhesiazomai, parrhesiatic speech is not true and the rest of the characteristics, to be risky, critical, and believe that parrhesiatic speech is a duty, cannot exist among these limitations. Freedom of speech and parrhesiatic speech have several limitations which contradict the entire purpose of the first amendment.
