As a writer, it's time I wrote an essay about why it is important that I can write, and that others can express themselves as well. For the purposes of this essay, free speech refers to expressing a particular viewpoint verbally, through some form of media, at protests, or by some other means. Speech as a means to some sort of criminal end, such as discussing a plan to rob a bank, doesn't count because in this case, words are being used not as a form of self-expression but as a way to plan a criminal action unrelated to speech. Basically, I believe in all forms of speech that do not directly plan or intend to incite some action outside of speech that we agree is harmful to society. Where free speech ends and inciting violence begins is a bit of a fuzzy line, but basically any ideology can be expressed far away from it.
While I used to think that most people in the West assume that free speech is a good thing, it's not quite the case. There are certain examples on college campuses, for instance, of students basically banning conservative viewpoints or ones that are not sufficiently egalitarian. I doubt that this type of hypersensitivity is as common as conservative reactionaries claim, but the fact that it exists at all alarms me. Certain opponents of Donald Trump, so-called liberals, have also talked about “shutting him down”. Trump himself is hardly a guardian of free discourse as well, of course. And then there is the Internet, a powerful means to express ideas has ironically spawned groups opposed to free speech, and I don't just mean that they moderate their groups. There are the stereotypical “social justice warriors”, but more concerning are the more authoritarian groups. For some reason, Stalinists and fascists continue to exist, and decry the ability to even talk about certain ideas.
The problem with restricting speech that isn't a means to cause physical harm is that it's hard to know where to stop. I think it's fair to say, for example, that Nazism is a toxic ideology, and we'd all be better off if nobody supported it. But there are some unfortunate implications to banning support of Nazism entirely. In effect, banning support for any ideology, however repugnant it is to us, bans a certain way of thought. While that may not be a particularly beneficial type of thought, it's frightening to imagine the government or the majority banning ideas. There was a time when mainstream society saw feminism and civil rights as threats to the social order. What if it was OK to officially censor the suffragettes and MLK?
Restrictions on speech also have a way of weakening the ideas that were left uncensored. If you are isolated from criticism of your beliefs, you lose the ability to defend them properly. Even the most extreme viewpoints have something to offer. I've been partially inspired to write this essay in the first place, as a sort of response to the aforementioned online Stalinists. Even they make somewhat cogent arguments, and it's a good exercise to explain to yourself why you can't just ban ideas, or why political purges are a bad idea.
The only sane way to deal with the concerns brought up by opponents of free speech is better education in critical thinking. One doesn't have to peddle a specific ideology to teach students how to think about ideologies. Students do not need to be indoctrinated to the notions of evolution of the efficacy of vaccines; they simply need to be taught the scientific method, and decide for themselves. Don’t “shut down” someone or something you disagree with. Come up with an answer instead.
