<div class="header-image"></div> <table class="table-header"> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="2"></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>2024-05-23</td> <td style="text-align: right;"><a href="About.md" class="internal-link">About</a></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> # Free Speech and the Right to be Wrong  Free speech isn't about the freedom to be a complete asshole. It's not about using words that are taboo. It's a mindset. It's the belief that people are generally good, and even those who seemingly are not, have only somehow lost their way. Free speech is about the ability to discuss topics in good faith. It's the belief that we *all* want what's best for the world; we just might have different ideas of how to accomplish it. It's also the freedom to say, or even do, things that we might not be very proud of down the road. It's the freedom to get it wrong sometimes. To be incorrect. In short, the freedom of speech is the freedom to be a human being. Being a liberal myself, someone who values freedom, individuality, and civil liberty above anything else, I always saw freedom of speech as, perhaps, the most important freedom we have. And while it's phrased differently in various countries, we all have it legislated in the west, in various degrees, in some form or other. In my mind, it just seemed crazy that anyone would ever be punished in any way simply for making particular sounds with their mouths. Nobody was ever hurt by a syllable. >[!Note] >I'm obviously speaking, here, about the freedom to hold and express opinion. Even abhorrent opinions. I'm not talking about the freedom to defame, slander, promote violence, etcetera. Although even these things are not criminal (with the exception of promoting violence, of course), nor should they be, they do invite litigation in civil suits. I'm in no way arguing that this should not be the case. While people are free to accuse others of anything they like, everyone is also free to defend themselves against these accusations, and must have an accessible path to do so. > >I'm also not talking about the freedom to speak however one likes on any platform on the Internet. People are free to choose whatever platform they like, and there are many that respect near absolute freedom of speech. But if I run my own platform, on my connection, hosted on my server, in my house or place of business, or pay for someone else to do that hosting for me, I certainly have the absolute dictatorial right to allow whatever speech I deem fit, and to arbitrarily allow access to whomever I wish. Large platforms also have these rights. I can disagree with the *wisdom* of how different platforms are moderated, but I will not disagree with the owners' *right* to moderate as they see fit. It's become fashionable of late to feign a sanctimonious indignation when particular words are strung together in a sentence. Arguments over moral "truths" are what lead to this indignation. There is the fallacious assumption that what is morally right or wrong is a static, unchanging thing. That what we, as a society, have deigned to be morally just in this time and place, has been held for all time and all places, when this clearly isn't the case. Morality has changed and evolved over time. Some things have changed even within our own lifetimes, however much we want to forget it. The majority of US Democrats believed that same-sex marriage was immoral, and should remain illegal, when Obama was elected president. Now, even the [majority of US *Republicans* support same-sex marriage](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004629612/a-record-number-of-americans-including-republicans-support-same-sex-marriage). In Canada, however, same-sex marriage was acceptable across all parties since 2005. This is one example of the mores of society changing within a very short period of time, at different rates in different parts of the world. What's more, this couldn't have happened *without the freedom to talk about it*. We must have the freedom to hash these things out in a public way. This means that every side of an issue needs to be explored and debated. This also means that when new information is brought to the table, we may need to *return* to older debates and talk about things with a fresh perspective. Some of these debates need to be continually discussed. 15 years ago, when people were actually still civilised, we talked these things out. We loved the discussion --the debate-- and we convinced the Democrats, along with Obama, that there was no reason at all why same-sex marriage shouldn't exist. And 10 years after that Republicans were convinced as well. If we just sneered and called everyone a bigot, no one would have been convinced because no one would have heard any argument to actually be convinced *by*. But as it is, the average Republican of today is *more* progressive than the average Democrat was, back in 2008 when Obama was elected. This was only made possible by *talking about it*. There is no way convince anyone of anything by simply shutting down the argument. And yelling and screaming about people being evil if they don't immediately fall in line is just foolishness. Was Obama evil when he called marriage a sacred bond between a man and a woman? Was Hilliary? People need to evolve at their own pace, and need room to be convinced. They need the time and freedom to realise that their position may need rethinking. To admit to *themselves* that they might be in the wrong. The current climate of shame and exclusion (not to mention doxxing and the destruction of livelihoods) makes it impossible for any of this to occur. It only makes people afraid to ask questions. It has long since been understood that the freedom of speech means that we can criticise anyone or anything, including our laws or even our own government. This is an extremely important and *powerful* right. But it also allows for the criticism of ourselves. It allows for people to express opinions we don't hold, and perhaps find morally repugnant. These things are not bugs in the system; they are *features*. This not only shows everyone who exactly holds these repugnant views, it allows us the opportunity to respond, explain why their views are unacceptable, and in doing so let other people hear the discussion. People that might not necessarily understand the various points of view will now be able to hear *your* point of view. If we forbid upcoming generations from hearing these points of view and the arguments against them, then eventually, when these ideas are inevitably heard again, these generations, and the generations that follow, will be unequipped to argue why they are, in fact, bad ideas.