Be they bewildering, perplexing, or just puzzling, the world is filled with things that don’t seem to or perhaps don’t always make sense. Not right away, nor even after some measure of consideration. Our tolerance for such things will be as manifold as there are people to consider them, but some things oughtn’t be so difficult to convey or accept.
Free speech comes to mind.
Few people in the world have free speech, and the less of it there is, the more oppressed the people. It is not just apparent in history but also today. The darkest regimes on planet Earth are the least permissive when it comes to what you are allowed to say in public and often private (as there is always a parallel incentive to snitch on others to improve your circumstances). And it is neither misinformation nor disinformation to make that claim. [Related: If I’m Not Entitled to My Opinion, I am a Slave to Yours.]
Other forms of expression that might crowd under the umbrella of what most Americans view as protected by the First Amendment are likewise limited among regimes that limit speech. The Muslim world is peppered with restrictions that increase exponentially if you don’t happen to have been born with a penis.
These are not ineffable, nor are they conspiracy. Given the power and opportunity, human beings who seek to limit the words we use tend increasingly toward broader acts of tyranny.
Why, then, would anyone with the ability to have an opinion insist that the government ensure that there’s is the only one permitted? In my mind, the only answer to this is that they are incapable of defending their position or lack the mental capacity to accept challenges to the paradigms with which they surround themselves. [ICYMI – Looking for Disinformation? The Government is The Best Place to Start]
Our perceptions about how things work for us can be no less stubborn than those of the future despot. It is also true that at the individual level, while we share many commonalities, such as species, culture, ethnicity, or sex, we are each different. So, while there are numerous areas of alignment, methods, mechanics, and personal preferences can be widely disparate.
It is (apparently) not clear to the people working to limit what words we use and how we arrange them, and once given this power, the State will inevitably infringe on their speech as well. That being uncomfortable now and again is the price we each pay for the right to do the same thing—as we will inevitably do, even in the most well-behaved society.
The headline of this article is the question defenders of free speech need to ask when engaging with anyone who suggests that the government be permitted to define what is true and how we may discuss it. “Why Are You So Sure They Won’t Come for Your ‘Speech’?”
It is about as nonpartisan a query as can be imagined.
Another might be, “If we know that people will say things that are not true and with the intent to mislead, why wouldn’t some of them be in the media or work for the government?” And, “What would prevent them from giving those things the force of law (even if the fraud was accidental) in a system with no remedy or redress?”
The answers are they do, and they will—if you let them. But to get there from here, they need your acquiescence or (better yet, your) support to nibble at the foundation long enough to reach a tipping point.
They will come for your speech because there is no society where you will not, at some point, disagree, and if you do not accept this now, it will not occur to you until it is too late.
We ought to be able to agree on that.
