I had an epiphany recently. It’s so basic that it’s almost laughable. It finally occurred to me that when we speak of “free speech,” we often don’t know what someone else means by it.
Which of your views are you willing to no longer share on substack/some other platform if people find it hateful? Or what posts are you willing to see taken down because someone else seems them non-constructive?
It is all good to think we should remove hateful or unconstructive things when we are determining what that means within our own heads, almost always targeting other people, it is much harder when we consider we'd have to live with other people making calls that impact our speech.
In the words of Hillary Clinton when dealing with a woke scold: There is no hecklers veto when it comes to the freedom of speech.
In order for freedom of speech to actually work properly one needs to cultivate an environment that is conducive towards constructive dialogue. There is simply no ideal algorithm one can apply and then healthy dialogue will ensure. There are always trade offs.
My definition of free speech is as follows: imagine two people, Alice and Bob. Alice has something to say, and Bob wants to hear what Alice has to say. But Cedric, a would-be censor, wants to prevent people from hearing what Alice has to say.
Free speech is whenever Bob can hear what Alice has to say (including discovering that Alice exists and what she is about). And censorship is whenever Cedric wins.
Note is it irrelevant, in principle, whether Cedric is an agent of a state or a private entity.
It's worth recalling, perhaps that the First Amendment, which secures free speech for Americans, begins with "Congress shall make no law..." The Framers explicitly prohibited government from policing speech and left it at that.
Outside the ambit of government and law, therefore, no one has the right to be heard. Speech is routinely censored—not, indeed, by actively shutting people up but by refusing to give them a platform or a hearing. This can be unfair and offensive, but as long as government isn't involved, it's not a free speech violation in the constitutional sense.
This line made me have thoughts: "Think of it as a dinner-party for a million of your closest friends."
If you invite someone into your home you have not granted them the right to steal your silverware or urinate in the pantry, or on the dinner table. If you have invited people into your home, you can enforce a certain level of decorum and ask people who disrespect you and your home to leave. Doing so is not a violation of their right to freedom of expression. That right is specifically with regard to government intervention as you mentioned. So if someone's been invited to someone's house, and they don't like the rules, they can leave and go find a house where they do like the rules. Or, they could exercise some civility, and respect the rules of the house.
I agree with you on all the cases you have mentioned but I think there is another dimension to consider: what about employers who punish you for opinions unrelated to your job?
For example, if a university fires someone for their opinions on trans rights, is that a violation of free speech? What about a large employer who refuses to employ anyone who believes in human biodiversity?
America has the wonderful First Amendment (I wish we had one of those) but I think it makes Americans take a very narrow view of what ‘free speech’ is or isn't. Clearly, the US Government is constrained by the First Amendment but that doesn’t mean that it’s OK for other organisations to punish people for unpopular opinions.
This not even just about the law; it’s about basic morality. Consider adultery as an analogy. Most people think adultery is wrong even though the law has very little to say about it. Similarly, restricting people’s speech is *wrong even though the First Amendment only constrains the government.
* of course, as Katherine says, if someone is rude in your house or on your social media platform, that’s a different matter. That is not free speech.
So when it comes to private businesses, legally, I'd leave their right to determine to them. However, what I tend to advocate for is greater tolerance for speech we disagree with, a broader Overton window...in that context. My book is largely about that. It's definitely a difficult issue.
Thank you for sharing. As an Ai content creator, I have occasionally experienced unacceptable comments (in my opinion) and this article reminded me to revisit my understanding of free speech. Your articles are insightful and much appreciated.
I take a wider view than you do. What you call "free speech," which is freedom from (most) government limitations on expression, I call "the first amendment," which is to me a subset of free speech as a concept. I think we both agree that private interests can regulate people's speech on their property without legal consequence. I can say, "get out of my house if you're going to say that," and Substack can say "go find another platform for that idea, sir." Amazon or Wal-Mart can choose not to sell your book or album if its management doesn't like it for whatever reason, or if they feel it will alienate other customers. That is legal. But it is also a violation of free speech. It is a form of legal censorship and, beyond that, it is a choice.
I view my own free speech absolutism as a commitment to get beyond what's legal and to examine my choices, as well as how and when I criticize the choices of others. I am not perfect in this but I try, when I disagree with somebody or even find them offensive, to avoid the impulse to call for their appearance to be cancelled, or to shout them down from the audience by employing a heckler's veto, or to try to work the refs by getting their work blacklisted by advertisers or platforms. I try to remember that my annoyance at, say Tucker Carlson doesn't justify trying to make him unavailable to the people who do like him. The whole notion of free speech beyond what's illegal is really about attitude.
I believe I am pretty much in agreement with you. Any speech concerning ideas is allowed but ad hominem attacks should not be. You are free to criticize my ideas but don't criticize my weight, my features, my lifestyle, or where I choose to live. Don't dox because that can lead to violence. Writers such as Shakespeare, Churchill, and Oscar Wilde prove one can be cutting without violating those parameters.
Social media is already a verbal sewer and its owners are such behemoths now that governments which actually care about their citizens are probably powerless to change it.
The question of free speech is a nightmare to define so well done for having a go. In my view, libertarianism and free speech absolutism (using a literal definition) are incompatible with a decent, effective society. The clash between personal freedoms (including speech) and the collective good of the society as a whole requires careful adjudication and compromises. In my view this should be the role of government, which should be able to draw the lines based on the prevailing cultural norms in their society - isn’t that part of democracy?
I think you could start by requiring all users of sm to identify themselves - accurately. Do that and the amount of garbage and propaganda on line will plunge dramatically.
I am curious regarding your last paragraph. You suggest social media users should identify themselves, yet you are The Rhythm.
I am using my full name here. I have "skin in the game".
I'm not suggesting that you dox yourself; I assume you have reasons to use a pen name here. But beyond being potentially disingenuous, you may want to think further about the centuries-old practice of writing anonymously or using a pseudonym as even some of the Founders did.
Fair point. I’m choosing to stay anonymous because sm is such a toxic environment and there’s so much nastiness and hate, I’m not sure it’s safe to identify yourself. I would if it was a universal requirement. Furthermore pseudonyms for books and printed publications are not from an era of instant communications to millions and the prospect of having reputations destroyed in nanoseconds.
The government is the worst arbiter of speech, in part because political winds can shift so quickly, and in large part because of the power they have. I can be "in Facebook jail", but it is merely inconvenient. Amazon could refuse to sell and deliver goods to me, which would make me sad. The government has the power to take my possessions and wealth, to punish me with community service and life restrictions, to imprison me, to kill me. It is different and potentially more malevolent than the others.
As we have seen in (what used to be) liberal western democracies through the last decade, it doesn't take much for those in power to sqelch the speech they would prefer to have silenced. The government can and has silenced people for what it called misinformation or disinformation or hate speech. Sometimes the censored speech has later been proven true. Why should the government control public discourse? They are so often ignorant, venal, corrupt, uncaring, and even abusive. They are so often driven by the cause du jour. They are so often wrong.
Shall we review a list of doctors and epidemiologists who were silenced at the request of the Biden administration because they questioned Covid policies - universal masking, the six foot (2M) rule, the extended closing of schools, giving the vaccine to young children, or even suggesting that those able to prove natural immunity (through having had the disease) should be exempt from the jab? People were being reported for being unmasked in their backyard with only family members present. I don't want people with that inability to think critically to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
In Great Britain people are being arrested, facing economic hardship and even incarceration for reposting social media publicly questioning immigration policy. In fact, some have been arrested for standing in a public area praying silently too near an abortion clinic. Standing alone, without signage, praying silently. Thoughtcrime. George Orwell has become the Nostradamus of our age.
This is happening now.
The government is very often not our friend if we are not full-throatedly supporting it.
I am willing to accept a certain amount of chaos, ugly behavior, and sentiment with which I vociferously disagree to preserve the right to speak freely. I am not willing to allow a bunch of politicians (or worse, bureaucrats) to be the gatekeepers of public discourse. They have too much power already without allowing them to control my ability communicate.
Fair enough, perhaps my view is too idealistic. But then I live in a country with a much better and more decent government than yours, where people largely get along far better than you lot, where democracy and the rule of law actually largely work and where personal freedoms still exist in everyday conditions. I guess if I lived in a country so full of hate and division as yours where the governments are powerless to do much about it (or even aid and abett it as with the current government), and where people happily kill each other in droves while bleating about personal freedoms, then I guess I might be as cynical as you.
Overlooking the ad hominem attack, I would remind you that those in power do not remain so indefinitely. Would you like in your country an administration with which you vehemently disagree (such as Trump's) to be given control over speech? I would not like it even from an administration with which I did agree. I want to hear those with different world views challenge mine and thereby make me a more critical thinker.
BTW, where do enjoy such a blissful existence?
I feel you have a distorted view of the United States where I currently make my home. My country has its faults, but we are a geographically enormous country and astonishingly diverse in race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and politics, which creates challenges not faced by smaller countries with more homogeneous populations. To characterize it as full of hate and division where people happily kill each other in droves makes me suspect you have no direct experience with it. If you would care to see it for yourself, it would please me to suggest an itinerary outside the usual haunts of our foreign visitors (or even to play host for part of your voyage of discovery). While often rough around the edges, some find us a surprisingly charming and hospitable people on the whole. 😉
As writers of a newsletter with the power to ban a commenter, we each exercise our own version of free speech. So my red lines are personal attacks and bigotry.
I like the way free speech has been codified by the Supreme Court over the years. But clearly my restrictions are much more severe on my newsletter. And if I see personal hate on Notes, I will report the author of the Note even if it has nothing to do with me.
So I don't think I have a good definition because it's very forum and jurisdictionally dependent. That means I also am not going to be consistent. It's a great question, Katherine. I wish o had better answers.
I generally have similar standards though I used to be more loose. I think once my audience grew it became a necessity to be more restrictive. People often don't get what this stuff is like at scale.
Which of your views are you willing to no longer share on substack/some other platform if people find it hateful? Or what posts are you willing to see taken down because someone else seems them non-constructive?
It is all good to think we should remove hateful or unconstructive things when we are determining what that means within our own heads, almost always targeting other people, it is much harder when we consider we'd have to live with other people making calls that impact our speech.
In the words of Hillary Clinton when dealing with a woke scold: There is no hecklers veto when it comes to the freedom of speech.
In order for freedom of speech to actually work properly one needs to cultivate an environment that is conducive towards constructive dialogue. There is simply no ideal algorithm one can apply and then healthy dialogue will ensure. There are always trade offs.
My definition of free speech is as follows: imagine two people, Alice and Bob. Alice has something to say, and Bob wants to hear what Alice has to say. But Cedric, a would-be censor, wants to prevent people from hearing what Alice has to say.
Free speech is whenever Bob can hear what Alice has to say (including discovering that Alice exists and what she is about). And censorship is whenever Cedric wins.
Note is it irrelevant, in principle, whether Cedric is an agent of a state or a private entity.
It's worth recalling, perhaps that the First Amendment, which secures free speech for Americans, begins with "Congress shall make no law..." The Framers explicitly prohibited government from policing speech and left it at that.
Outside the ambit of government and law, therefore, no one has the right to be heard. Speech is routinely censored—not, indeed, by actively shutting people up but by refusing to give them a platform or a hearing. This can be unfair and offensive, but as long as government isn't involved, it's not a free speech violation in the constitutional sense.
This line made me have thoughts: "Think of it as a dinner-party for a million of your closest friends."
If you invite someone into your home you have not granted them the right to steal your silverware or urinate in the pantry, or on the dinner table. If you have invited people into your home, you can enforce a certain level of decorum and ask people who disrespect you and your home to leave. Doing so is not a violation of their right to freedom of expression. That right is specifically with regard to government intervention as you mentioned. So if someone's been invited to someone's house, and they don't like the rules, they can leave and go find a house where they do like the rules. Or, they could exercise some civility, and respect the rules of the house.
That's exactly how I think about it.
Aka everything you say is held against you for someones else agenda
Freedom of speech and freedom of press, then the freedom repeats
Excellent and timely as always as so many are in fear of persecution for speaking out.
Thank you, Peter!
This is thoughtful and well argued. Thanks.
I agree with you on all the cases you have mentioned but I think there is another dimension to consider: what about employers who punish you for opinions unrelated to your job?
For example, if a university fires someone for their opinions on trans rights, is that a violation of free speech? What about a large employer who refuses to employ anyone who believes in human biodiversity?
America has the wonderful First Amendment (I wish we had one of those) but I think it makes Americans take a very narrow view of what ‘free speech’ is or isn't. Clearly, the US Government is constrained by the First Amendment but that doesn’t mean that it’s OK for other organisations to punish people for unpopular opinions.
This not even just about the law; it’s about basic morality. Consider adultery as an analogy. Most people think adultery is wrong even though the law has very little to say about it. Similarly, restricting people’s speech is *wrong even though the First Amendment only constrains the government.
* of course, as Katherine says, if someone is rude in your house or on your social media platform, that’s a different matter. That is not free speech.
So when it comes to private businesses, legally, I'd leave their right to determine to them. However, what I tend to advocate for is greater tolerance for speech we disagree with, a broader Overton window...in that context. My book is largely about that. It's definitely a difficult issue.
I like your clarification of the distinction between harassment and opinion - very important
Thank you for sharing. As an Ai content creator, I have occasionally experienced unacceptable comments (in my opinion) and this article reminded me to revisit my understanding of free speech. Your articles are insightful and much appreciated.
Thank you so much, Edward
I take a wider view than you do. What you call "free speech," which is freedom from (most) government limitations on expression, I call "the first amendment," which is to me a subset of free speech as a concept. I think we both agree that private interests can regulate people's speech on their property without legal consequence. I can say, "get out of my house if you're going to say that," and Substack can say "go find another platform for that idea, sir." Amazon or Wal-Mart can choose not to sell your book or album if its management doesn't like it for whatever reason, or if they feel it will alienate other customers. That is legal. But it is also a violation of free speech. It is a form of legal censorship and, beyond that, it is a choice.
I view my own free speech absolutism as a commitment to get beyond what's legal and to examine my choices, as well as how and when I criticize the choices of others. I am not perfect in this but I try, when I disagree with somebody or even find them offensive, to avoid the impulse to call for their appearance to be cancelled, or to shout them down from the audience by employing a heckler's veto, or to try to work the refs by getting their work blacklisted by advertisers or platforms. I try to remember that my annoyance at, say Tucker Carlson doesn't justify trying to make him unavailable to the people who do like him. The whole notion of free speech beyond what's illegal is really about attitude.
I believe I am pretty much in agreement with you. Any speech concerning ideas is allowed but ad hominem attacks should not be. You are free to criticize my ideas but don't criticize my weight, my features, my lifestyle, or where I choose to live. Don't dox because that can lead to violence. Writers such as Shakespeare, Churchill, and Oscar Wilde prove one can be cutting without violating those parameters.
Social media is already a verbal sewer and its owners are such behemoths now that governments which actually care about their citizens are probably powerless to change it.
The question of free speech is a nightmare to define so well done for having a go. In my view, libertarianism and free speech absolutism (using a literal definition) are incompatible with a decent, effective society. The clash between personal freedoms (including speech) and the collective good of the society as a whole requires careful adjudication and compromises. In my view this should be the role of government, which should be able to draw the lines based on the prevailing cultural norms in their society - isn’t that part of democracy?
I think you could start by requiring all users of sm to identify themselves - accurately. Do that and the amount of garbage and propaganda on line will plunge dramatically.
I am curious regarding your last paragraph. You suggest social media users should identify themselves, yet you are The Rhythm.
I am using my full name here. I have "skin in the game".
I'm not suggesting that you dox yourself; I assume you have reasons to use a pen name here. But beyond being potentially disingenuous, you may want to think further about the centuries-old practice of writing anonymously or using a pseudonym as even some of the Founders did.
Fair point. I’m choosing to stay anonymous because sm is such a toxic environment and there’s so much nastiness and hate, I’m not sure it’s safe to identify yourself. I would if it was a universal requirement. Furthermore pseudonyms for books and printed publications are not from an era of instant communications to millions and the prospect of having reputations destroyed in nanoseconds.
I disagree, with all due respect 😉.
The government is the worst arbiter of speech, in part because political winds can shift so quickly, and in large part because of the power they have. I can be "in Facebook jail", but it is merely inconvenient. Amazon could refuse to sell and deliver goods to me, which would make me sad. The government has the power to take my possessions and wealth, to punish me with community service and life restrictions, to imprison me, to kill me. It is different and potentially more malevolent than the others.
As we have seen in (what used to be) liberal western democracies through the last decade, it doesn't take much for those in power to sqelch the speech they would prefer to have silenced. The government can and has silenced people for what it called misinformation or disinformation or hate speech. Sometimes the censored speech has later been proven true. Why should the government control public discourse? They are so often ignorant, venal, corrupt, uncaring, and even abusive. They are so often driven by the cause du jour. They are so often wrong.
Shall we review a list of doctors and epidemiologists who were silenced at the request of the Biden administration because they questioned Covid policies - universal masking, the six foot (2M) rule, the extended closing of schools, giving the vaccine to young children, or even suggesting that those able to prove natural immunity (through having had the disease) should be exempt from the jab? People were being reported for being unmasked in their backyard with only family members present. I don't want people with that inability to think critically to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
In Great Britain people are being arrested, facing economic hardship and even incarceration for reposting social media publicly questioning immigration policy. In fact, some have been arrested for standing in a public area praying silently too near an abortion clinic. Standing alone, without signage, praying silently. Thoughtcrime. George Orwell has become the Nostradamus of our age.
This is happening now.
The government is very often not our friend if we are not full-throatedly supporting it.
I am willing to accept a certain amount of chaos, ugly behavior, and sentiment with which I vociferously disagree to preserve the right to speak freely. I am not willing to allow a bunch of politicians (or worse, bureaucrats) to be the gatekeepers of public discourse. They have too much power already without allowing them to control my ability communicate.
Fair enough, perhaps my view is too idealistic. But then I live in a country with a much better and more decent government than yours, where people largely get along far better than you lot, where democracy and the rule of law actually largely work and where personal freedoms still exist in everyday conditions. I guess if I lived in a country so full of hate and division as yours where the governments are powerless to do much about it (or even aid and abett it as with the current government), and where people happily kill each other in droves while bleating about personal freedoms, then I guess I might be as cynical as you.
Overlooking the ad hominem attack, I would remind you that those in power do not remain so indefinitely. Would you like in your country an administration with which you vehemently disagree (such as Trump's) to be given control over speech? I would not like it even from an administration with which I did agree. I want to hear those with different world views challenge mine and thereby make me a more critical thinker.
BTW, where do enjoy such a blissful existence?
I feel you have a distorted view of the United States where I currently make my home. My country has its faults, but we are a geographically enormous country and astonishingly diverse in race, ethnicity, culture, religion, and politics, which creates challenges not faced by smaller countries with more homogeneous populations. To characterize it as full of hate and division where people happily kill each other in droves makes me suspect you have no direct experience with it. If you would care to see it for yourself, it would please me to suggest an itinerary outside the usual haunts of our foreign visitors (or even to play host for part of your voyage of discovery). While often rough around the edges, some find us a surprisingly charming and hospitable people on the whole. 😉
As writers of a newsletter with the power to ban a commenter, we each exercise our own version of free speech. So my red lines are personal attacks and bigotry.
I like the way free speech has been codified by the Supreme Court over the years. But clearly my restrictions are much more severe on my newsletter. And if I see personal hate on Notes, I will report the author of the Note even if it has nothing to do with me.
So I don't think I have a good definition because it's very forum and jurisdictionally dependent. That means I also am not going to be consistent. It's a great question, Katherine. I wish o had better answers.
I generally have similar standards though I used to be more loose. I think once my audience grew it became a necessity to be more restrictive. People often don't get what this stuff is like at scale.