October 23, 2024
Should There Be Any Limits on Free Speech?
Philip Kotler
Elon Musk surprised everyone in October 2022 when he bought Twitter, the free speech platform, for $44 billion dollars. Why did he buy Twitter? “I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.” But Twitter was always seen as a platform for free speech. People of all kinds published their opinions on Twitter.
Musk had something else in mind. He felt that Twitter was largely showing the interests of liberals and was underrepresenting conservatives. Musk bought Twitter to make Twitter more evenly balanced about free speech. Musk pledged to broaden Twitter’s definition of acceptable speech and he was heavily applauded for this by conservatives.
In reaction, the liberal and progressive community expressed pain to see Twitter change from a public company to a private company run by one man. Before Musk, Twitter had guard rails and suspended accounts posting harmful content like hate speech, harassment, and misinformation. Liberals worried that Musk would allow free speech to include hate speech, foul language, lies and misinformation.
After purchasing Twitter, Musk changed its name to X. Initially, he wanted to allow all speech without limit. This could include accepting racist speech, terrorist speech, hate speech, and pornographic speech. Musk’s associates pleaded with him to reinstate constraints or otherwise X would lose major advertisers. Activist groups pressured advertisers to stay away from X; X’s revenue plummeted. Musk finally agreed to ban some types of speech where harm was likely to happen to X or to specific groups in society. Musk adopted a more aggressive position, almost shutting down free speech. Musk gave up being a free speech absolutist.
In the 2024 election race, Musk announced that he would join Donald Trump and donate $75 million to Trump’s campaign. He also implied that joining Trump was to extend free speech. The irony is that Trump increasingly talks like a dictator who would take away free speech if elected. Trump now talks about fighting “the enemy within,” namely the Democratic Party, candidate Kamala Harris, liberal politicians and journalists, and others who have attacked him. He threatens that if he wins the 2024 Presidential election, he will jail enemies. This would clearly be an attack on free speech. How can Musk have so strong a desire for political power that he would willingly abandon truthful free speech and back Trump who is notorious for his lying, misinformation and disinformation.
The Case for Free Speech
Most supporters of free speech go back to John Stuart Mill and his book On Liberty (1859). Mill stated that without human freedom, there could be no progress in science, law, or politics. He argued that “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered”. Mill believed that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits. He argued that truth drives out falsity and should not be feared. Truth is not fixed but evolves over time. Much of what we once considered true has turned out false. People thought that earth was the center of the universe. Mill argued that free discussion is necessary to prevent the “deep slumber of a decided opinion”. Mill argued that silencing the expression of an opinion is an injustice to a basic human right. For Mill, the only instance in which speech can be justifiably suppressed is to prevent harm from a clear and direct threat. Shouting “fire” in a theater when there is no fire can cause panic and great harm. However, offending someone, as opposed to deeply harming someone, should be tolerated.
Harm can be thought of taking place in cases of slander, libel, obscenity, pornography, hate speech, fighting words, sedition, incitement, blasphemy, perjury, copyright violation, trade secrets, or food labeling. Some nations forbid journalists to write with disrespect or disapproval of the royal family, religion, or the government. By placing these limits, democracy might be hurt. Democracy can’t work in a country if those in power can stifle criticism.
Today, the freedom of speech includes any medium, whether orally, in writing, in print, through the internet or art forms. Freedom of speech can be viewed as a negative right. A nation cannot stop a person from free speech but is under no obligation to help any speakers publish their views, and no one is required to listen to, agree with, or acknowledge the speaker or the speaker’s views.
Specific cases involving free speech continue to occur:
1. Should people be permitted to deny that Germany perpetrated a Holocaust. Many European countries outlaw speech that might be interpreted as Holocaust denial.
2. Should people be permitted to commit blasphemy such a disparaging Muhammad? Austria sees disparaging Muhammad as not protected free speech whereas France protects this blasphemy under its free speech law.
3. Should U.S. citizens be able to speak openly for violent action and revolution in broad terms? The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969),allowed it to be a right even to speak openly of violent action and revolution in broad terms. The exception is where such advocacy directly incites or causes imminent lawless action.
4. Should hate speech be permitted? The Supreme Court ruled that hate speech is permissible except in the case of stimulating imminent violence.
5. Should Americans have the right to hold a peaceful protest? This is a fundamental right in a democracy.
6. Should the U.S. Congress have the right to regulate pornographic material on the Internet? The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 attempted to regulate pornography. But this would reduce the speech available for adults on the internet. The real need was to protect against child pornography.
7. Should city or state governments have the right to ban books? It appears that book banning has increased and that credible laws have not appeared to stop it.
8. Should people be allowed to lie, misinform and disinform without being sued and fined? Again, the legal course is to demonstrate the great harm that dishonest acts cause to specific groups.
All these knotty problems keep coming up.
Conclusion
“Should there be any limits to Free Speech?” The answer clearly depends upon whether the country is a dictatorship or a democracy. In a dictatorship, the dictator of a “closed societ” cannot permit “ill-informed or malevolent speech.” Suppressive states like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have rigorous limits governing what people in these countries can talk about. They will quickly jail dissidents to send a message to the rest of the population regarding taboo topics.
Democratic societies, on the other hand, favor the freedom to say publicly whatever you want to say. George Orwell said in his book Animal Farm “”If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Noam Chomsky went further, “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like… That means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” Voltaire went further, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The right to speak freely is the essential right in a democracy. Democracy is based on the idea of self-government and the right of citizens to freely get information and to form and express their opinions publicly. Every democracy needs to support Free Speech. However, when free speech directly incites violence or physical harm to a particular group, there need to be constraints in a democracy.
