The War on Free Speech

JOHN KERRY SAYS THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD: THEY HAVE VILIFIED FREE SPEE
 John Kerry, speaking on a panel on climate change at the World Economic Forum, lamented what he regards as insufficient censorship of “disinformation” and called on his allies to “win the ground, win the right to govern” in order to be “free be able to implement change” despite the “major block” of the First Amendment. But a survey of the dismal state of free speech in the United States shows that Kerry and his allies have already developed means to sidestep the “major block” of the First Amendment. Hillary Clinton herself has floated the idea of criminal penalties for the spreading of “misinformation.” In addition, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has similarly called for “reining in the media environment” so that people cannot just “spew information.”
DEBUNKING THE PROBLEMATISATION OF FREE SPEECH
But, let’s proceed to directly respond to the claim made by figures like John Kerry, which at its core, is the problematisation of free speech; and in particular the potential for free speech to produce lies and misinformation. As a first response, unpleasant things happen both as a result of free speech and due to a lack of it. Particularly around unpleasant subjects that society would rather hide. People are falsely accused of child molestation, and we know the impact that such accusations can have. However, the growing child exploitation and abuse industry, driven by the internet, is also protected by fear of speaking out.
But, this fairly unpleasant example is important, as it exemplifies the problem around controlling speech. In essence, people who systematise evil, like child exploitation or plandemics, can use limits on free speech to suppress knowledge of their own deeds or to unleash the rage of the mob against those who oppose them. The prohibition of censorship is the only bulwark against the concentration of such power.
The second response to likes of John Kerry, who problematise free speech, is that people have ways of dealing with the harms that free speech can cause. Where it causes clear personal harm with malicious intent, there are legal sanctions that allow these to be exposed and openly discussed. Where it calls for murder or physical harm, there are laws that recognize it as part of any subsequent crime. BUT, the public is actually remarkably good at tempering their speech and recognising what is right and what is wrong when they can see all sides. In fact, it is worth noting that the major pogroms and mass murders of the past century were nearly all under the guidance of governments who controlled narratives, and not undirected mobs in society. History is clear on where the greater risk lies as far as whether free speech ought to be limited – in fact, remember our discussion on the Sedition Act?
FREE SPEECH IS INTEGRAL TO LIMITING UNCHECKED POWER
Fear of a lack of truth drives many people’s calls for controlling speech (e.g. blocking misinformation). As a result freedom of speech is about putting limits on the power of a few over the many. Censorship, by contrast, is the tool of those who consider their own thoughts and words superior to those of others. In the early 20th century this was called fascism. By any other name, it is the same thing. The Western governments pushing new information control laws are uncomfortable with that term due to its associations with monochrome footage of jackboots and concentration camps. It is what their people thought they had fought against. But the underlying driving principles they are espousing are the same.
While fascist regimes rely on lies for their survival, and so must continually ramp up censorship once they start it, the absence of censorship also enables lies to be disseminated. These can be harmful but are controllable as long as there is freedom to expose the lie. For instance, the Nazis gained popularity through freedom of expression but needed violence and censorship to actually take and hold overall power. The United States Founding Fathers saw this when they agreed to the First Amendment. Such freedom of expression can be abused by individuals seeking to promulgate mis- and dis-information. But, this is a worthwhile cost, to ensure that the really bad people cannot take power, or those in power cannot then become really bad and stay there.
Meanwhile, despite what history teaches about autocratic regimes like Nazi Germany, Western governments are currently pushing censorship to ‘keep their populations safe,’ itself an inherently elitist claim that implies that the population are less able to discern truth and untruth. The Australian government publicly and incoherently dissociates ‘free speech’ from information that the government considers to be “misleading.” Once this is accepted, free speech means nothing more than government-sanctioned messaging.
Such limits can only serve to amplify the voice of the powerful while disempowering the weak – those who don’t control the organs of censorship. This should be self-evident to those who have suffered under overtly authoritarian regimes, as it was for 18th-century Americans who suffered under a British military dictatorship. However, in populations like Australia, where only a small minority have experienced open repression, a self-defeating naiveté persists. ULTIMATELY, the silencing of the people is simply the transition from the people owning a government to being subject to one. It protects those at the centre and exposes everyone else. And once in place, history demonstrates that this is very difficult to peacefully undo.
Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso