PETA zombie activists?

“Free” speech is not truly “free.” If it were, how could it be illegal to lie in court or in business dealings? If it were how could people be punished for leaking top secret information, or yelling “fire!” In a crowded theater, swearing at a judge (contempt of court..) or raising a mob to hang someone or riot? Free speech doesn’t give a person the right to say anything anywhere at any time nor does it mean there are no consequences for what we say- but by the same token the spirit of free speech requires us to limit the impositions we put on what people say. Restricted speech is an easy road to a mechanism of corruption and control.

What we label as “dangerous” speech is a tricky thing. There must be an obvious and direct danger as well as a precedent in history to support the idea there is danger. It’s a slippery slope. When we look at something like many genocides or campaigns of oppression they start with grumbles and opinions, and each tiny step tends to lead to the next escalation. Like a frog in water where the temperature is slowly raised past boiling, but the frog sits still and lets itself cook alive because each increase is so slight by itself it doesn’t signal danger, and until the water is hot enough to hurt the frog the gradual tempo of increase allows it to get used to the new temperature as normal.

So there is a danger- but to deny individuals the right to opinions is not only unenforceable but totalitarian and extreme. So there must be a carefully walked line between prevention of hate and freedom if we want both. The paradox of tolerance is that by its nature to exist and thrive it must be intolerant of the intolerant. The “villains” of tolerance are those who refuse to allow others to live by their own ways- but in “force conversion” or punitive action against such people the tolerant are denying them the right to live their way as well. In other words- inclusion is a system by which one chooses to participate or be excluded.

Therefore it is doubly imperative that not only are limits set as broad as practical, but precedent and discretion be exercised fully in making decisions on what to restrict. An intrinsic element of the democratic process is disagreement. The right and ability to voice opinions and for parties to be heard and even if not agreed with- to have the reasons transparent and the right to speak their pierce wherever practical. A rigid system requiring validation and backing of statements made in public to a standard of proof that is thorough and realistic could help separate emotional and logical fallacy from constructive fact based argument-

However many times issues facing society are as much of an emotional nature as a practical nature. You can give a person the odds of them or someone they know being involved in a terrorist bombing or mass shooting- show them that they have better odds of being struck by lightening or whatever else- but if they FEEL unsafe or they FEEL like an issue important to them isn’t being addressed- there will still be unrest. If a person has already had a loved one involved in such an event- in their mind and their perspective the odds of it happening are 100% because it already has. But if you debate a crying mother on national tv and explain to her bluntly that it was a bad coin flip, explain the mechanisms of chemical bonding and the nature of impermanence etc- it tends not to go over well with people who tend to see such things as uncaring or cold.

So free speech like any right is a sticky situation. Like any right free speech needs restrictions and checks and balances because in the real and practical world absolute freedom doesn’t tend to work well for a society. However in order to preserve freedom we must never restrict a freedom lightly no matter how obvious it may seem that an aspect of it is bad. We must always discuss the topic fully and openly, and take the weight as a heavy burden and not view it as a release from a problem.

Like cutting off an infected arm or undergoing intense cancer therapy- we may feel better after all is said and done, we may get relief from the problems in front of us- but we will also face new problems and road blocks created from that solution. That is why we don’t amputate or go to the most aggressive treatment at the first signs of problem or before we’ve exhausted all other options. That is why doctors and patients discuss and contemplate the situation and talk out alternatives together. The seemingly easiest solution is rarely the best solution and usually is the one which leads to the most problems or the worst results down the road.

The issues social, personal, and culturally that cause hate in people, that make some people susceptible to conversion or radicalization- these don’t disappear when we make it illegal to speak them out loud. But we do know that a culture which embraces or encourages hate speech will tend to see more of it. Where attitudes and words of hate are openly and freely allowed hate tends to also be more openly allowed. If you can say a person is less than you- why can’t you treat them like that? If you and your neighbor and your boss all agree these people are thieves- why can’t you all treat those people like thieves?

We know words have power. Just changing the phrasing of a headline changes how we read the story. Just speaking a thing can make it more real to us- simply hearing a thing we know enough times isn’t true can influence us to act on it or consider it as true. But we must be very careful what we label as prohibited speech because from each individual perspective what is or isn’t hurtful is different- and from a singular perspective informing a law only what is considered valid by that one yard stick is represented. How do we define a racial slur for example if we wanted to make their use illegal?

How do we cover not just all existing g slurs but those new ones that might be made to subvert such a law? How do we handle historical use of such things in a way to allow the teaching of history and enjoyment of historical art but also prevent these clauses being used as loopholes?” How about words that are considered socially acceptable within a group but not by those not in that group?