The way we talk about free speech ignores its core paradox. We simply ignore that freedom isn’t absolute.
We’re operating with two essential definitions of free speech.
- An absolute right to say anything.
- The protected right to speak one’s conscience.
These aren’t the same thing.
To maintain an absolute right to say anything, we cannot simply overlook difference of opinion. We must protect it.
This has two ramifications free speech absolutists usually ignore:
- Enforcing free speech (on behalf of the KKK, for example) requires the state to silence others.
- Refusing to enforce free speech leads to the silencing of others through bullying or social sanction.
In other words, free speech absolutism doesn’t protect absolute free speech.
Because it can’t. It’s impossible.
However, to protect the right of one to speak one’s conscience, we consider that some sanctions are necessary. And it allows us to determine which ones are worth keeping.
Broken Speech
We have a strange concept of free speech in the United States. It is hyper-focused on how governments or corporations set boundaries for speech. At the same time, some of these same people are concerned that “mobs” cancel comedians.
To many, what connects these two is censorship. And all censorship is bad because all speech must be protected.
Of course, to make this case is to ignore the way they want the government to silence the silencers…for the pursuit of no silencing.
This is a strange way to see the world.
To protect an absolute (which is impossible), we must pretend we are maintaining it.
Rather than, say, consider the way we limit each other. Or be intentional about the kinds of limits we are willing to enforce.
We can choose to define free speech as a refusal to limit it. But that doesn’t prevent speech from being limited. Nor does it solve the problem.
Better to be honest about the speech we must limit. And the ways we ensure speech remain as free as possible.