Freedom of speech is an American value embedded within both our legal framework and civic culture since the establishment of our union. The Miami Patriot was founded upon the need for not only an outlet for conservative speech, but also to ensure free public discourse in Oxford. It is therefore imperative for conservatives to explain our proper, principled stance on the matter of free expression and why we are so concerned with censorship.
In recent years, freedom of speech has come under attack across the Western world. Individuals in the west are becoming more anxious about sharing opinions out of fear of retaliation by their peers, private organizations, and in rare cases, even the state itself. Many have accused the right of being overly dramatic about the extent of censorship and some even deny that our rights to free expression are in trouble.
A 2020 survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) surveyed roughly 20,000 students across the U.S at the 55 largest Universities. The survey found that 60% of total students stated they could not express an opinion out of fear of being ostracized by their peers. This number was much higher among those who identified as “staunch Republican” (73%), but a small majority (52%) of “strong democrats” also reported feeling this anxiety. Only 15% of students (11% for women and 19% for men) felt comfortable disagreeing with their professor in public about a controversial topic. This also extends to a variety of different political issues among students.
Freedom of speech acts as a protective social tool to prevent groupthink, which can often lead to erroneous action. It also acts as a sort of intellectual peer review, since humans are plagued with many cognitive biases which can distort our trail of thought. Freedom of speech therefore acts as a correction mechanism which helps us to root out our own biases. Freedom of speech also allows us to be exposed to new ideas which can either change, refine, or bolster our current beliefs. Being able to express, defend, and develop your own beliefs is imperative to proper maturation and function in an increasingly complex world.
Many progressives have been scrambling to come up with reasons to justify why certain forms of speech should not be allowed, whether it be hate speech, conspiracies, or the meanderings of conservative political factions. In most cases, such reasons can be deduced down to no more than just special pleading on part of the anti-free speech advocate, but the most commonly cited justification is the late Karl Popper’s “Paradox of Intolerance” which is used as a proper attempt to justify political censorship.
Over time, some of Karl’s concepts, such as the aforementioned Paradox of Intolerance, have been used to erroneously justify political censorship in a way he would have found abhorrent. Karl Popper did not advocate for censorship of even the most extreme ideas. When it comes down to silencing and censoring the population, Karl Popper believed that the only time in which censorship is justified is when the opposing side refuses to engage in proper discourse, advocates for violence, and therefore threatens an open society. “But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.” Karl Popper had no problem with allowing extreme ideologies, whether it be anarchy, fascism, or communism to be discussed and advocated for in a free society. These ideologies only became problematic when their adherents attempted to forego public debate and discourse in favor of violent revolution.
Hate speech is arguably the most controversial form of speech in the Western world. Laws against hate speech exist in many developed nations and more are being considered as we speak. However, even if they were found to be constitutionally palpable, hate speech laws have a number of undesirable effects which outweigh any sort of proposed benefit. The restriction of hate speech would also hamper the ability for people to take in information which could otherwise bolster, change, or compliment their views. Howard’s 2019 article summarizes an argument by Sean Shriffin, a professor of philosophy at the University of California, dubbed the “Thinker-Based Argument”
“The most recent argument for freedom of speech by a major scholar focuses neither on listener interests nor on speaker interests, but on the interests that we all have as thinkers. On Shiffrin’s (2014, pp. 9–10) view, speech is special because it ‘provides the only precise mechanism by which one’s mental contents may be conveyed to another mind, with all their subtlety and detail.’ Without knowledge of what others sincerely believe, our efforts to understand the world, pursue relationships, and cooperate on moral matters would verge on impossible. These concerns subsume all of the interests standardly invoked by free speech theorists, and more. Shiffrin’s (2014, p. 92) argument thus connects to both Rawlsian moral powers. It is the value of open channels of linguistic communication that renders objectionable any attempt to subvert or restrict these channels, thereby obstructing human beings from telling one another what they genuinely believe.”
Hate speech laws also have the effect of influencing authoritarian nations around the world. Many Russian technocrats are looking towards Germany’s hate speech laws to use new methods of quashing dissidents in the Russian motherland. For example, theFacebook Act passed in 2017 in Germany was meant to combat fake news and hate speech. Reporters Without Borders, a nonprofit, criticized the law by noting a later Russian censorship bill drafted in the same year was heavily inspired by the German law. Many actions taken to prevent hate speech also can lead to immense privacy risks for citizens which far outweigh any sort of alleged benefit from stopping the spread of hate speech. We do not want to give autocracies any new ideas with regards to violating the autonomy of their citizens.
Another controversial form of speech is conspiratorial speech. A conspiracy is simply anytime an individual or conglomerate of individuals work together to achieve certain goals of theirs that are usually detrimental to the majority or a specific group. Like any sort of concept we entertain or create, any conspiracy theorist needs to have ample evidence or reasoning to justify their beliefs. Just because many crazy and outlandish conspiracies exist doesn’t mean the entire concept of a conspiracy is silly or should be done away with. Just like how because bad science exists, it doesn’t mean we should stigmatize or do away with science as a discipline or avenue of knowledge. This also doesn’t mean that conspiracies never happen. It is true that many mainstream conspiracies range from completely unsubstantiated to outright insane, but erroneous ideas will always be present. Cultivating trusts among experts is the proper route to diminish the influence of conspiracy theories, not harsh censorship.
A common platitude espoused by progressives is that freedom of speech does not entail freedom from consequences. This understanding of rights is absolutely absurd. A human right logically entails some degree of protection from consequences. If we were to develop a policy stating one could not discriminate against someone purely on the basis of their religion, but did not enforce the law, then how would this right reliably be exercised? If virtually every private company chose to violate this right, including those private entities we rely upon for everyday important functions, then the right exists in name only. In practice, discrimination could be practiced without any negative consequence, and the right would be up to individuals themselves to protect. Even North Korea’s constitution calls for freedom of speech and political expression, but as we can see, any right which is not actively protected is merely ink on paper. The direction of politics will always be mediated by participation rather than oration.
Usually, progressives will also retort by pointing out two apparent contradictions in conservative thought. First, isn’t utilizing the state to protect and enforce freedom of speech at odds with conservative conceptions of a limited government? Secondly, when the issue of freedom of speech and business’ rights to serve who they please arise, which issue takes priority?
Conservatives do believe in a government that respects local autonomy through the principle of subsidiarity. Conservatives also have a large disdain for bureaucracy. This does not mean conservatives believe the government is evil or has no purpose. On the contrary, the government is needed to support a complex civilization, which means one could say it is more positive to have a state than to not have one by virtue of it being necessary to sustain a civilization which is a good. In other words, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the state as a political tool to further conservative goals.
When it comes down to the right of private businesses to suppress or hinder speech, a few variables must be kept in mind. The first is magnitude. A company like Walmart denying some sort of service would be much more impactful than a mom and pop style business. Secondly, we must take certain geopolitical factors into account. If a foreign nation begins to post or agitate via a large social media platform such as Twitter, then it would be justified to encourage said company to ban users relating to this. Finally, we must realize that the state vs. private sector dichotomy often has very blurred lines. States can work with private entities in order to act in their own self interest. A private company choosing to deplatform or censor someone is still censorship even if it’s not done through a state apparatus. If American citizens are to be endowed with certain rights such as speech, then it is imperative that these rights are protected in all spheres, not just arbitrarily limiting them to the state. Companies should be free to choose what sort of speech they want to allow given that it lies within constitutional boundaries.
Finally, contrary to popular belief, free speech is not a culprit for the rise of totalitarianism. As mentioned earlier, some will argue we should censor extreme ideologies or else they will utilize the right of free speech to spread their ideas, eventually allowing them to seize power. This is a complete misunderstanding of how extreme ideas acquire power. Dictatorships and authoritarian populist ideologies gain popularity either through a violent revolution (which, as noted earlier, is a violation of free discourse) or by using complicated strategies in order to gain influence, such as the use of social capital (Satayanth et al. 2017) in the face of great public disturbance. The Weimar government of interwar Germany banned those associated with the Nazi party from holding positions as civil servants through the Prussian State Ministry’s decree of 25 June 1930 (Central European History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (2001), p60). The Kingdom of Yugoslavia banned their communist party and pushed its members out of public life underground only for it to become a socialist dictatorship anyways after World War II. Attempts to censor extreme movements in the past have always failed as they often gain members by exploiting the anger directed at legitimate structural grievances in society which should be addressed through sound policy. Therefore, when it comes to preventing tyranny, the best antidote is a satisfied population, not draconian speech laws.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right which needs to be enforced in order to have a proper public discourse. Speech must not only be protected against state actors, but by private ones as well. By allowing people to speak freely, especially within academic contexts, we can prevent tribalistic groupthink which can often lead to the detriment of an institution’s function. Through exposing ourselves to many different viewpoints and ideas, we can not only grow as individuals, but begin to bridge and fix the immense polarization that our union faces today.
