Free Speech

As humans evolved linguistically, we developed language models and other forms of communication that gave certain words specific meanings. Without these meanings, words are essentially abstract concepts. The meaning of words can be subjective or objective, and this can lead to misunderstandings between individuals from different linguistic backgrounds. For example, asking someone if they are "mad" might be interpreted as an insult by a Nigerian, while a native English speaker might simply answer the question.

However, the meaning of words is not set in stone and can vary depending on context and individual interpretation. This can lead to situations where people take offence to seemingly innocuous things, or where individuals use their freedom of speech to make hurtful statements. In some cases, governments may even pass legislation restricting certain types of speech.

In this article, I will attempt to explore these complex issues and provide some insight into how language and communication can shape our perceptions and experiences. While my analysis may not be perfect, I hope that it will stimulate thought and discussion on these important topics. Thank you for taking the time to read my work.

In Defence Of Free Speech

Speech has come to prove in many senses that there is great utility in speaking without restraint. This isn’t some cynical understanding of someone genuinely speaking only for the reason to offend anyone, but rather in the honest spirit of arriving at a solution for whatever problem we might have.

It is also the case that difficult things ought to be discussed, and not be swept under the rug. When swept under the rug, the “problem”, so to say, has merely been postponed. It hasn’t been solved. Speech is how we arrive at a solution. It goes without saying that there will be tendencies for disagreement wherever there are opposing ideas. The understanding of the nature of free speech calls only for careful navigation, and not the total silencing of any opposing idea, or deluding oneself from the idea that there’s something that needs to be discussed – however contentious.

In plenty of cases, speech is the formulation of internalized thinking. When speech is therefore restricted, freedom of thought is constrained and limited. A biological factor to understand in this situation is that our prefrontal cortex (responsible for our rational actions) grew out of the motor cortex (the region of the cerebral cortex involved in the planning, control, and execution of voluntary movements). This means that over the course of our evolution, we were more likely to act first before thinking. But the punishment that comes with taking the wrong move has enabled our species to be more rational about any action they might take.

Clearly, to be rational is to engage in internalized thinking, and to be clear that you aren’t thinking about the right things at the wrong time is to be able to act out the thoughts you feel are right. This is where you utilize speech. If you are wrong, you’d have to face the consequences. This is what we do as a society, we are constantly negotiating about the right things to do and the right things to say. It is what we teach in the stories we tell ourselves.

Beyond the need for self-expression, speech has also proven to be very therapeutic. Psychologists like Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers would often ask their clients to lie on their backs, and simply say whatever came to their minds. This is called the revelatory speech. It enables those who need help to discover the psychological root of their problems through verbal investigation. This is also why it is highly recommended that those dealing with some sort of mental health issue speak to someone, or even more privately, write down their thoughts.

Speech therefore can be considered as a therapeutic process of discovering problems and solving them. Clinical psychologists use this method a lot. The type of therapy with a lot of emphasis on dialogue is termed psychotherapy. This is a highly effective method, because even you, as the reader, know how you feel when you just have someone listen to your rants.

These are just some real utilities to the use of speech.

The Right To Offend

When discussing difficult topics, it is natural for certain statements to be perceived as insensitive or offensive by some individuals or groups. However, this does not necessarily mean that these topics should not be discussed at all. It is important to have open and honest conversations about challenging issues, even if it may lead to discomfort or disagreement among participants.

At the same time, it is also important to be mindful of the impact that our words may have on others. It is possible to engage in difficult conversations without resorting to hurtful or discriminatory language. This requires a willingness to listen to different perspectives, and to approach the discussion with empathy and respect for others.

Regardless, no one is above any degree of offense. But let’s agree that I’m having a discussion with someone, and the rule is that I mustn’t offend them with anything I say. What about when I’m speaking to 5 people? I must manage not to offend anyone. What about 50? 100? 900? What if I manage to offend 2 out of 1000 people? Would that be considered some sort of hate speech? Is what I’ve said offensive, or you are simply offended by the utterance, regardless of its nature? Would it be my fault for saying something? Or is it your fault for being a snowflake? Assuming of course that you are the 1/1000 people in this hypothetical situation that found my utterance offensive.

This situation played out at the Oscar event where Will Smith slapped Chris Rock. In your opinion, do you think Will Smith was right to slap Chris Rock because of something he said? This is despite the fact that video evidence proves that Smith found the joke funny, but his husband (Jada Pinkett) didn’t find it so funny. It is fair to say that he reacted in an impulsive way to restore her disturbed ego.

It is fine to joke about WW2, famine, death, and poverty, but not your head. It is easy to laugh about every other thing, but you cannot be the subject of a joke. People that are quick to take offense fail to realize that humor is really how we cope with the toughest of things. As a Nigerian, I know how much I joke about “sapa” or poverty. It is simply a cope. If we don’t try to use jokes and memes as coping mechanisms, or even to speak of the darkest of human experiences, we are left with a plain realization of our situation. And trust me, if you aren’t the type to take a joke about the toughest taboos, you can’t face the grim reality of the darkest things.

To disrupt an event like the Oscars to readdress your ego is as insecure as it gets. Is any particular joke offensive? Or you are simply offended? Or perhaps not just you, but rather, you are offended on behalf of another person. Or a group of people. This would be the highest virtue signaling that screams "Everyone, look at me, I am morally superior to this person, and I have to disrupt this entire program in order to satisfy my insecure ego". But are you truly that important?

Does anyone deserve to go through life and never be offended? Is anyone ever truly that important? Even in our digital and physical spaces where all the people we interact with agree with all the things we say? Is there any chance that all things that will be said are in line with things that don’t disturb our self-esteem?

We often forget too that the job of a comedian is to make their audience laugh. Regardless of whether the joke was funny or not, it was a joke. The selective outrage of cherry-picking through a series of things to find one to be offended about is the worst type of being a snowflake that clearly is protected by those who only agree with everything they say.

Gender Pronouns, Political Correctness vs Free Speech

The best predictor of totalitarianism is the voluntary decision of the citizens to engage in self-deceit. From here on, it becomes easier for the government to determine what can be said and what the law frowns upon.

Political correctness, masked with false compassion has been a tool that radical leftists use to demand that people only speak in certain ways to avoid verbally hurting someone that in some ways claims to be victimized.

In 2017, the Canadian government attempted to entrench a bill (c16) into the Human Right Law. This law was incoherent, and it basically states that the refusal to call a person by their self-identified gender expression is synonymous with harassment, and the consequence of this would be jail time. This means that if my name was Big Phaze, and my pronouns are bigguss/dickuss, the law would require you to call me by those pronouns.

This is what one would call compelled speech legislation. If I am not going to be jailed for refusing to call you Peter, even if your name is Peter, why should it be the case that your pronouns are of any significant importance? The democratic law can demand that you shouldn’t use certain words to describe people. Words like racial slurs (N-word, oriental, etc) for example are considered hate speech. But what if the government demands that you must cede the linguistic and common-sense territory and refer to people with whatever names they choose to self-identify with.

I am not sure if the bill passed, but I’m certain that it opened a Pandora’s box. Today, there are claims of there being over 100 genders, most of which bear their individual pronouns. Although the people that fit in this category would make up about 10% of the population, their demands have gone from having people respect their existence to demanding that “out of respect”, everyone should refer to them as they so wish. This is masked under the empathy guise. And of course, most people will buy into it, since it after all does nobody any harm to simply call people whatever they wish to be called. Right? Wrong. This is simply an encroachment upon the individual right to freedom of speech.

Respect isn’t just given. It is earned. Why should I falsify my thoughts because I need to delude myself from the glaring underlying Marxist maxim in your ethos of social constructivism? Not in all cases, but when you exhibit some form of respect towards someone, it is because they’ve done something to deserve it. You don’t demand respect unless you are lying about your own righteousness.

In this position, it is also easy to claim victimhood status when anyone refuses to address you as you wish to be addressed. You might even get on a moral high horse and claim that because of your minority status, you are being oppressed, and everyone else failing to bow to your dictates are the oppressors.

The downside to the absence of freedom of speech is the regulation of speech in itself. That would mean that a set of people would determine what is harassment and what isn’t. In that case, if there was a tribunal, they could report this piece for example for “hate speech”. What if a thousand people read it and only 3 people find it somehow unsettling? Would that still be regarded as hate speech? It is really hard to determine what is and what isn’t hate speech. It isn’t 2+2=4. It is much more difficult than that. But what I do know is that you don’t want that power in the hands of the government. The government should never get so much into people’s personal lives. Again, this is a one-way street to authoritarianism.

Limits Of Free Speech

In most legal systems, there are limitations on free speech. This is clearly a necessity in any society. Some regulations around free speech include slurs, defamation, slang, inciting violence, perjury, etc.

These regulations make it harder for anyone to abuse the doctrine of free speech. To an extent at least. If there is any more regulation than this, even journalists would begin to have problems reporting events that the public might want to know about.

When given this power also, the citizens would be at the mercy of the government. Consider it a state-sponsored cancel culture. Because you’d have to be careful of the things you say online and offline. This dystopian nightmare would seem like a page straight out of George Orwell’s 1984.

While it is the case that you don't get to determine the context or intention behind someone else's words. Your feelings are not context. That's just your feeling. It is also important that as humans, as a people, we must gravitate towards tolerance and harmonious existence with one another.

Free speech is also the most important instrument the majority has to demand accountability from the powers that be. It is also all that they have to express their grief towards any form of tyranny.

With this out of the way, I hope you’ve had an amazing time on this page. I expected this write-up to be longer, but I’ve already made my stance clear, so no need to drag it on any further.

Thank you for engaging me. I hope to see you again next week. Cheers!