No free speech means no other rights

Awful Truth #1: Without freedom of speech, you shall lose all your other rights. 

This first post establishes the foundation of everything that follows.  In fact, it determines if what follows is allowed to exist unmolested for someone to read or not read, mull over or ignore, agree with or dissent.  These choices must be yours alone to make. 

This awful truth is a warning I advise everyone heed, whatever your druthers, before it’s too late.  This includes the smug censors who think it does not apply to them and never shall.  It does and it shall.  Terribly so.  Guaranteed.           

The rumination on my part is necessary because the censors are grown powerful—and we must rise up, unite, and fight if we are to stop them.  The sanctimonious tattletales who report our indiscretions, and demand we be silenced and suffer ruination as punishment, are increasingly emboldened and shrill.  Oh, Lord, how I despise the stridency of these officious hall monitors who would doom us to a smug dystopia of smothering fear and miserable sameness. 

Modern technology provides those who would silence us powerful tools: ubiquitous cameras and microphones, inexpensive and miniaturized; fabulous amounts of data storage; algorithms fashioned as merciless informants; social media sites upon which accusations and demands for punishment reverberate as a cacophony of asshattery. 

Our complacency regarding freedom allows the censors to mercilessly wield these tools as weapons.  Weapons used to hunt, punish, subjugate, and silence.  This should frighten you if you’ve a lick of sense.  It frightens me. 

Therefore, I offer my two cents on freedom of speech, thought, and expression (freedom of speech, for short).  It’s a precious right of incalculable value, worth any price dearly paid.  Our betters, those who would lord over us, realize this right is a threat whose existence thwarts the vile theocracy of groupthink and compliant speech, which they intend to forcibly impose upon us, one in which they reign as its high priests and we meekly obey its tenets.  We face a very real risk at losing this right—or losing it completely, as we’re already far down the terrible road to that bleak end.      

You either believe in free speech or you don’t.  There are few qualifiers here—and these must be kept to an absolute minimum.   

A society that respects freedom of speech is one in which tyranny cannot take hold.  Freedom of speech is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny.  Therefore, it should indeed frighten us that so many people support censorship.  Today’s censors include people who should know better and were once reliable supporters of free speech: elected officials, college students, academics, journalists, editors, booksellers, lawyers, comedians, and artists.  A former President of the United States gave a speech at Stanford University in support of censorship, under the specious argument that “misinformation” threatens democracy.  Big Brother couldn’t have lied about it any better.   

Censorship is evil.  It is never intended for noble purposes, though it is always claimed otherwise.  Totalitarianism cannot exist absent censorship.  It is the primary tool fascists use for control and oppression.  If you support suppressing freedom of speech for those who hold ideas you don’t like, you are either a fascist at heart or a submissive enabler.  Both are despicable.      

The censors are glib gaslighters.  They always justify their suppression on it being necessary for the utopia they desire.  The person who says, “I support freedom of speech, but…” is always a censor.  You can bet that the attached qualifier is something he deems wicked or dangerous, and he doesn’t want other adults to decide for themselves whether or not they agree with this determination.  When you equivocate about freedom of speech or qualify this right, you in reality don’t understand it or believe in it.

Do not buy into bullshit arguments in support of censorship.  There are many of these, which include the following: 

• “Freedom of speech does not mean free of consequences.”  The person who says this fully means for these consequences to prevent someone from speaking his mind and make others fearful of doing likewise.
• “I’m exercising my freedom of speech by _________.”  Fill in the blank with an action intended to silence someone else and you are not exercising your right to free speech, you are depriving someone else of theirs.  The following are some of the childish actions that people claim are free speech (fill in the above blank), but are actually done to deprive someone else of their right to it:
  • Interrupting a speech.
  • Blocking people from attending a speech.  (This also takes away the attendees’ right to free assembly.)
  • Getting a speech canceled.
  • Fake reserving tickets to a speech with the intent of keeping people from attending.
  • Demanding advertisers do not advertise on a television show.
  • Pressuring banks or online payment platforms to stop lending money or providing financial services to a person or entity. 
  • Pressuring a bookseller to stop selling a book. 
  • Pressuring a publisher to not publish a book.
  • Hiding books at the library or turning a book around at a bookstore display (yes, this juvenile nonsense occurs).
  • Getting someone fired from their job or expelled from school.
  • Getting someone kicked off a social media platform.
  • Demonetizing social media posts.

(Any of these make the perpetrator a fascist—albeit a weak, wussy one.)

• “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution only deals with the government interfering with free speech.”  Freedom of speech, thought, and expression is a fundamental human right.  This is a right beyond that specified in the First Amendment, which prohibits government interference with freedom of speech.  Free speech is a right every human being must have without interference from anyone or any institution, including the government, employers, schools, churches, or corporations.  Those in power often subvert the First Amendment, attempting censorship via proxy.  A blatant example of this is when elected officials hold potential regulation over the heads of social media platforms if they don’t deal with what is deemed misinformation or hate speech.  This is why people must embrace the concept of free speech being a human right, beyond that specified in our constitution.       
• “An employer or school should be able to control speech.”  A minimum level of decorum is expected while a person is at work or at school because people there cannot escape “speech” they don’t want to listen to.  With that said, the rules around behavior in these places must be applied consistently and with fairness—and reasonably necessary for the place to function.  For example, if shirts with one political party’s logo are prohibited by a school or other entity, then all such logos must be banned.  Ditto flags (e.g., if the Pride flag is allowed on campus, then the Confederate flag is fair game, likewise).  Some schools wisely avoid such hassles by requiring uniforms or only allowing the United States and state flag be flown or displayed on school grounds.  But an employer or school must not have the authority to punish someone for speech done when the person is on his own time.  In fact, employers or schools must be prohibited from doing this.  Likewise, people must not use a person’s employer or school as a de facto censor just because they don’t like what someone said when on his own time.          
• “It’s hate speech.”  There is no such thing as hate speech.  That’s another term for speech someone doesn’t like, as evident by how dumbed-down the word “hate” has become.  A miscreant who paints a slur on the side of a building is rightfully charged with vandalism.  The same slur used in a context that doesn’t cause physical damage is not a crime (e.g., in movie script).      
• “The speech is violence.”  Speech cannot be violence.  Violence is violence.  Violence is another dumbed-down term, so much so that according to the would-be commissars among us: silence is violence.   
• “The speech might cause someone to commit violence.”  What someone might do under the supposed influence of a thought or idea is irrelevant.  Freedom is that important.  This causal linkage is often used by fascists as justification for their censorship.  It’s been wielded against rock & roll music, rap music, religious texts, movies, television shows, books, and video games.  It’s only the physical manifestations of ideas that we must concern ourselves with, and perhaps prevent or promulgate—not the notions themselves.  Parents have the right to decide what their children are exposed to, including violent or sexual content; hence, a rating system (e.g., for movies) is a reasonable accommodation that maintains a respect for free speech.  Adults must decide for themselves but not for other adults.     
• “The speech is blasphemous, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, xenophobic…”  It doesn’t matter.  The right to freedom of speech is meant to protect repulsive speech.  It is ironic that the same people who spout this excuse are selectively champions of free speech, including that involving artistic expression.  They’re fine and dandy with artwork such as Andres Serrano’s award-winning Piss Cross, in which a crucifix is immersed in the artist’s own urine, but would have a conniption fit if someone did likewise with a copy of the Koran or a rainbow flag.  Further irony: the person responsible for the aforementioned “offensive” speech is likely a far better person than the people who want to censor it. 
• “Well, what about child pornography!”  The production of child pornography using actual minors is a serious crime.  As is a snuff film using a real victim.  The action is the crime.  Please note that there are movies about someone being the victim of a snuff film (in which nobody is killed during the production) and there are pornographic films in which the actresses appear quite young, but are actually of legal age.  These are protected by the right to free speech.  Nobody should assume this (or any) right is unfailingly pretty.  Freedom of speech is meant to protect the existence of speech a reasonable person may find repugnant.         
• “It’s misinformation.”  There is no requirement that freedom of speech include an accuracy test.  Such a test is subjective and readily abused.  The way to counter what you believe is misinformation is to use your own right to free speech to provide a counter-argument or contrary evidence, not take away someone else’s right.  “Speech” used to defraud someone is a crime.  We mustn’t ban tarot card readings or seances or astrology (misinformation for our amusement), but if these are used to defraud someone, that is a crime.  Likewise, if a company makes a false health claim regarding a product it sells, it can (and should) face consumer fraud charges.  Be aware that the louder the cries are to censor something that our betters claim is misinformation, the more likely it’s actually the truth they wish to suppress.
• “The speech is disruptive.”  There exist criminal statutes for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, trespassing, vandalism, etc., and these should be based on the means, location, or volume of the speech, not its content.  For example, someone who blocks a public sidewalk to protest or stands in front of someone’s house with a megaphone can be charged with a crime (e.g., blocking a public sidewalk, disturbing the peace), irrespective of the speech itself.  A simple legal standard can be applied: A person is in front of someone’s house at midnight screaming in a language nobody in the house understands.  Arrest the person for trespassing and/or disorderly conduct and/or disturbing the peace.  It doesn’t matter what he was shouting about.         
• “The speech causes trauma, an unsafe space, or unwelcoming environment.”  Boy, our modern-day fascists are pussies.  Life itself is an unsafe space.  The issue in this case is not the speech.  The issue is the complainer’s personal weakness, and this is not justification to take away someone else’s right to free speech.  If you are so emotionally delicate that you can’t handle the existence of a book you don’t intend to read or the scheduling of a speech you don’t plan to attend or an Internet posting you don’t have to click on, your frailty is the problem, not the book or the speech or the Internet post.  Get therapy or grow up.  Do not deprive someone else of their right to free speech.  Don’t be an easily offended fascist.  
• “The speech might cause someone to commit suicide.”  The squawking about contrived suicide risks is appalling.  Troubled souls must not be used as human shields to throttle ideas one disagrees with or coerce the implementation of odious public policies.  If there is a risk that someone might commit suicide, get them psychological help immediately—this includes gender-confused kids if they’re having suicidal ideations.  So-called physical risks that might arise from free speech are irrelevant—it’s that important of a right.          
• “The Internet allows trolls to cause trouble.”  One man’s troll is another man’s philosopher king.  Everyone, including so-called trolls, must have the right to free speech.  If you truly believe in free speech, you must defend their right to have it, too.  As previously mentioned, modern technology gives the censor powerful tools.  Couple this with social media sites, which bring out the worst in us, and we have a ready supply of heretics upon whom the modern inquisitors can ply their malevolency.  In the Internet Age, we must either develop thick skins and embrace a newfound respect for free speech and vigorously defend it, or we shall suffer under a totalitarianism unlike any other.  There is no other choice. 
• “People made hateful, racist, misogynistic, etc. statements in the comment section of my social media post.”  Deactivate your comment section, restrict it to friends and family, or don’t read it.  If you have an active comment section on a social media account, it is insane to expect unfailingly positive and indulgent responses.  In fact, if that is your expectation, you deserve to be mocked or otherwise trolled.
• “He said a bad word.”  Grow up.  Nobody likes a tattletale, especially if it’s about what someone said in a context where there is an expectation of privacy, it involves a discussion among adults, or is intended for adults.  The trawling of people’s past (or present) for untoward utterances and then broadcasting it to the world is childish (Look, Mom, he said a something naughty!).  Protesting against a comedian’s act is an example of this pathetic nonsense—and shows that censors are mirthless busybodies.  Also, from a technical point, a person who deliberately brings such utterances to light and wider dissemination is the one who caused the stir and magnified the impact, not the person who originally spoke it or wrote it.   
• “The social media platform is a private company.  They can do whatever they want.”  These platforms are the modern public square, and thus free speech must be allowed.  As such, society must classify them as common carriers who cannot refuse service to anyone based on speech, such as is the case of a telephone or water company.  The water company cannot deny water service to Ku Klux Klan clubhouses or BLM offices or a political party.  If anyone associated with these groups commits a crime, the legal system is the proper (and only) entity to deal with it, not the common carrier. 
• “A mass shooter’s manifesto must not be available for others to read.”  Wrong.  These documents must not be censored.  I’ve read several of these and the media and others often mischaracterize what’s in these documents—deliberately so for political purposes (or were too lazy to actually read them).  As adults, we must have the right to read them and decide for ourselves.  That these manifestos might influence others is irrelevant, just as it is for the evil deeds influenced by the Holy Bible or Koran.        
• “What about the N-word?”  There are lots of words that start with the letter N.  Do you mean nugatory, Nebraska, nihilism, nougat, nephritis, napkin, Nepalese…?  More on this word later (a future post).   

There is always the temptation to silence those we don’t like.  It’s believed to be a victory of some sorts.  It isn’t.  It’s a loss for everyone, including the censor who at some point shall face the Inquisition, as well. 

Consider the weirdos on TikTok (and, boy, there are a lot of them).  They, too, have the right to speak their mind and express themselves.  That doesn’t mean we have to implement their nonsense as public policy, and this includes their demands for censorship or inclusion of their notions in school curricula.  They have no right to dictate the grammar that others use or that we indulge their delusions. 

My message to decent people is the weirdos on TikTok must be afforded the right to espouse their lunacy.  We must stand should-to-shoulder with them in this regard.  But we must fight their attempts to silence us.  Absolutely must.  The irony shall be completely lost on their pea brains, but that’s the world in which we currently find ourselves.  

We have the right to support or oppose the physical manifestation of speech, but not the speech itself.  We need to focus on actions, not the fear that words or ideas may result in an untoward action, for the simple fact that it doesn’t matter if any risk is posed by words unless they are concrete threats or elements of a conspiracy to commit an actual crime.  The right to free speech trumps any confected risk.  Consider the following sentences:

• “I wish Joe was dead.”
• “The world would be better off with Joe dead.”
• “I wish someone would kill Joe.”
• “I’d throw a party if Joe was dead.”
• “I’ll give you $1,000 dollars to kill Joe.”

The first four of these are protected speech.  The last one may be a concrete threat, but it would warrant further investigation in order to be sure.  An exculpatory distinction is obvious: If it’s said from one friend to another in a jokey context versus if it’s in the surveillance transcript of a clandestine meeting between a person and a Hell’s Angel member, during which there is the exchange of an envelope containing ten hundred-dollar bills.

If there is a silver lining to the current censorship douchebaggery that currently roils our world, it’s that I rarely get upset about someone talking smack in a manner that used to anger me.  I’d rather allow bawdy or otherwise offensive talk and ideas and, thus, maintain my own freedom, rather than go on the fool’s errand the censors wish to pursue.  They’ve showed me the folly of overreacting to petty shit.  I don’t care about speech that occurs on a person’s own time.  He can post it online or make it a work of art.  I don’t care.  I’ll focus my energy, either for or against, on the physical manifestations of ideas. 

Without free speech, no other rights are possible.  We must defend the basic human right for people to have any opinion they want and speak their mind, especially for those ideas we find repugnant.  There can be no repercussions for this that subvert this basic right. 

We presently face a real danger of losing this precious right.  If we do, those who deny it to us shall take away our other rights as well—after they disarm us. 

Guaranteed.