How Free Should Free-Speech Be? A Shout Out For Freedom and Critical Thinking

1:24 AM Unknown 0 Comments

We are the only species on earth to have enough brain power to invent ideas and to see things from our individual perspectives. That leads to diversity of ideas and opinions in society. As much as there are altruistic ideas, innovative ideas, and loving ideas; there are also harmful ideas, discriminating ideas, and hateful ideas. It is only by comparing those ideas, by giving them the chance to speak out their contents that we can figure out and judge for ourselves the values of each one.

To protect this process of finding better ideas and eliminating the bad ones, throughout the course of history humankind has devised a concept called freedom of speech. Since the invention of the printing press by which ideas can spread in such pace never before predicted, a suppression to this freedom has been imposed again and again by figure of authority. The people of power are always uncomfortable of free-speech because ideas always bring critics, and critics almost always lead to change. They start to impose laws of censorship, to prevent discussion and bartering of ideas to take place, holding the public in clutch of ignorance.

Censorship changes form, from the most abrupt method used by the church by burning heretics and issuing the List of Prohibited Books in the 16^th century to today’s internet censorship; but the goal remains: to deny the public the right to access information. The most subtle and probably most effective form of censorship still exist today is taboo-ness. It is so effective it makes the people themselves to prohibit their right to speak of certain topics. It puts them in the illusion that they have the freedom of speech, but limited. There is a line the discussion should not cross.

But the fact that there is a line is prove enough that it is not free. Who’s to say what topic should not be talked about? Who’s to say what opinion is too dreadful to be spoken of? What kind of freedom it is if the conversations are only allowed in some given constraints? No topic should be off limit from criticism. If our error knows no bound, then critics as our correction mechanism should be boundless as well.

The way to fight bad ideas is not by censoring them, but by giving them the spotlight and challenge them on stage. And if the challenged opinion has strong evidence that it can stand its ground against the bludgeoning of arguments, then we have to admit that it is probably a better opinion than the one we are currently holding and we should be willing to change our mind towards it. That’s how we learn. That’s how we move forward. If we are that confident of our opinion, why should we be so coward as to demand the other party to shut up? Disagreement should be followed with presentation of evidence and logical construct from both parties. Censorship -- the act of preventing this process of discussion, would murder the possibility for the public to access information and construct their opinion for themselves without interference of any authority. And thus, robbing the society the opportunity to improve itself.

"You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."