Free Speech for Me, Not Thee

Free speech is one of those ideas that virtually everyone claims to support. In theory, it is an almost sacred principle. In democratic societies, it is a hill that both the left and right pretend they are willing to die on. But in reality? No one actually wants free speech — not in its purest, most uncomfortable form. Supporting free speech has become the intellectual equivalent of saying “I recycle”, and yet it is treated in a manner comparable to tossing your takeaway container into the general waste bin. Just like people claim to love the environment until it means giving up their third overseas holiday of the year, people claim to love free speech until it means tolerating views they find repulsive. Then, suddenly, it’s “nuanced”. It’s a contradiction so blatant, yet so widely present, that it has become the status quo.

If free speech were truly a universal value, everyone would be consistent in their defense of it. Instead, both ends of the political spectrum betray their own principles whenever it suits them. Right-wingers rage against so-called ‘cancel culture’ and claim that political correctness is stifling open debate. Yet, they are often the first to advocate laws that limit the right to protests, the banning of books in schools, the shutting down of drag performances, or the exclusion of discussions on race and gender from classrooms. 

On the left, the hypocrisy is just as glaring. Progressives champion open expression when it comes to radical ideas about social justice, yet they advocate for deplatforming speakers they label as bigots or reactionaries. Universities — supposedly bastions of free thought — have seen countless incidents where speakers are shouted down or disinvited because their views are deemed unacceptable. But who gets to decide that? And if hate speech is defined by the listener’s perception rather than objective criteria, then doesn’t speech cease to be free altogether? 

One of the main issues with free speech is that no one seems to agree on what it actually means — people define it in several different ways. For instance, proponents of legal free speech believe that speech should only be legally restricted when it directly incites violence or breaks the law. Yet, determining what qualifies as incitement or a legal violation is often challenging. Consequentialist free speech holds that speech should be allowed as long as it does not lead to real-world harm — the difficulty with this perspective lies in deciding what constitutes harm and who gets to make that determination. Platformed free speech is the belief that free speech includes not just the right to speak but also the right to be heard. According to this view, public institutions should provide platforms for controversial voices rather than excluding them. Absolute Free Speech (free speech in its purest form) argues that all speech, regardless of how offensive or inflammatory, should be protected, including hate speech. Each of these definitions serves a different agenda, which is why debates over free speech so often descend into chaos. The discussion is not just about what should be allowed but also about who holds the power to define the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

Another hindrance to free speech debates is that a lot of people seem to confuse it with the idea that all opinions deserve equal respect, as though critical discussion is somehow oppressive. The phrase “respect everyone’s opinion” is plastered all over activist social media pages — a thought so shallow it hurts. Personally, I will always respect your right to voice an opinion, yet I will defend my right to call it f**king idiotic equally vociferously. Why? Because there is a major difference between — reluctantly, for the greater good — supporting someone’s right to express, say, a blatantly false view (“Vaccines are a mere conspiracy led by Bill Gates to implant microchips in people!”) and supporting the view itself. Opinions are not immutable characteristics like race or gender, so we should have no moral qualms about challenging them. And if, perchance, that offends you, I refer you to my earlier point…

The truth is, most people don’t want free speech — they want speech that aligns with their worldview while silencing dissent under the guise of protecting society. If we were all honest about this, perhaps the debate would become less hypocritical and more constructive. Instead of pretending to champion free speech, we should acknowledge our biases and grapple with the difficult question: how do we balance open discourse with the need for a functional, respectful society?

Until then, the next time someone proclaims their unwavering support for free speech, ask them: “For everyone, or just for the people who share the same core values as you?” Chances are, they won’t have a very good answer.

Image from Wikimedia Commons